Verizon Loses Suit Over Subpoena of Subscriber Info

Brian Golden writes "As a result of a suit filed by the RIAA, the identity of a Verizon customer with a penchant for mp3's was ordered to be released. Man, how many people are now sweating bullets trying to remember what they downloaded?" News.com.com also has a story. If you've forgotten about this case, see our earlier story. Verizon wasn't making any sort of principled stand to protect its users' privacy, it just wanted to avoid the costs of complying with the (many) subpoenas it will now receive.

Comments

sky.isFalling() = True

[Amsterdam Vallon]

Let me get this straight.

We now live in a world where anonymity no longer exists, we have to pay for music, and an ugly 18 year old Canadian chick is at the top of the US music charts?

I need a Tums...

Re:sky.isFalling() = True

[_bug_]

What if instead of MP3s this guy was suspected of transferring 6000 kiddy porn images?

And what if some cracker has rooted your machine with some trojan and is doing the downloading of kiddy porn. But the FBI only sees your IP address and when they ask the owner of that IP address (the ISP) to identify the user using that IP at that specific time, they come to you. You "claim" you "don't know anything about this" but of course the FBI won't believe that. They take your computer, your fax, all your CDs, all your disks, your home movies, go through your closets, your drawers, ask you to open up that safety deposit box you have at the bank that your spouce doesn't know about, ect...

Far-fetched? Not at all.

And as far as I can tell from the parent post, the poster isn't claiming that the internet should be a place for actions without consequences.

What we're talking about is the loss of privacy. Now any organization can subpoena your ISP claiming they saw W.X.Y.Z IP address downloading or sharing copyrighted music. They don't stop to question whether or not it's legal. (Yes, downloading an mp3 off an album you own is very legal.) The ISP, after this court's ruling, will be far more inclined to give up that information outright and most likely without your knowledge.

So now the company can go and subpoena a thousand IP addresses a week to an ISP. From that they can start to keep track of who is online and when and what they're doing. Suddly there's a database that notes who you are, your typical online hours, and what FILES (not songs, remember p2p is more than just mp3s) you may have on your computer.

Sure you might be innocent.

But they've got all this personal information about you and they've done it legally.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

'Cause that's where we are.

this is not good...

[joebeone]

This means that the (MP|RI)AA can serve as many goddamn subpoenas as they want and the ISP's lawyers will advise them to comply in light of this decision. The next logical step is for the (MP|RI)AA to serve cease and desist letters to individuals... then lawsuits will result if they don't comply.

Many people involved in this will agree that it's probably time for the (MP|RI)AA to start working on consumer dis-satisfaction... if they start to sue individuals, things will get very bad.

Where's Johnny Cochrane and the Chewbacca Defense

[snowpuppy]

Johnny Cochrane: It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. The defense rests.

As hard as it is to swallow...

[goingincirclez]

Rip. Mix. Burn.

Has been superceded by

Track. Subpoena. Litigate.

Which had damn well better begotten by

Boycott. RIAA. NOW.

The ONLY way to get them to shut the hell up and off our backs, is to make sure their sales suck long after file-trading has been smacked-down.

use DMCA to get spammers

[koehn]

I guess this means I can use the DMCA to force ISPs to give me the IDs of people whose machines have sent me spam. Since there's no due process involved, nor (seemingly) any right to appeal (at least by the ISP, and there doesn't seem to be a provision for user to appeal), I should be able to find out who they are, where they live, and their phone number.

What happens then? Use your imagination.

But what's the DMCA violation with spamming? The spammer has bypassed the technological measures installed on my machine (spam filters) preventing me from copying (receiving) their spam. Remember, the courts don't review this, so I can get their personal info just by asking.

Here, spammer...

Re:Come on!

[TheRealFixer]

It's interesting to note that downloading music you already own is most likely perfectly legal, whether the RIAA likes to admit it or not, simply because of they way they are trying to categorize the sale of music.

Say for instance, a bunch of my CDs get scratched and are now unplayable on a couple of my players. So, I just download the whole albums off of Kazaa to replace them. Technically, I am within my rights to do this. Why? Because the music industry is trying to look at it like the software model, where the content is wholy apart from the media. Therefore, I've a payed for a licence to listen to this music, and not for a fragile disk that's been destroyed.

Interestingly, if they looked at it like they were selling you the CD (something they're loathe to do; see: the hard, bitter battle against used CD sales), instead of licencing the content, it could be argued illegal to do that. After all, if you scratch your car, you can't just walk down to the lot and drive another one off without asking, can you?

Of course, the RIAA once tried to convince people on their website that making backup copies of music you've bought was against the law. So, pesky legal "rights" are of little concern to them anyway.

Possible silver lining? Just *possible* ?

[g_adams27]

Could it possibly be that maybe the RIAA has over-extended themselves this time? Up till now, they've mostly gone after individuals and small, poor companies. And geeks on their own haven't had much success in getting DMCA-restricting laws passed. DMCA abuses have probably been largely under-the-radar for most congressmen, and for those who have noticed them, there's probably been plenty of RIAA lobbyists (and cash!) to convince them that these really aren't abuses.

But now, with this one-two punch aimed at ISPs (see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/18/21 16255&mode=thread&tid=141)they've started annoying the big boys - corporations with real money. No ISP in their right mind wants to have to give up their user's personal info without a fight - it makes them look bad and generates a lot of bad will with their customers.

So might it be that Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth, Earthlink, etc. will start some counter-lobbying on the Hill to get the DMCA limited? Sure, they're not really doing it for the best reasons... but you know what they say about "the enemy of my enemy."

Re:These things are going to continue.

[fanatic]

people who actually create things of value

Quick, name the last song written by the RIAA.

Reuters got this wrong....

[lynx_user_abroad]

Did Reuters get this wrong, or have I misread something?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge ordered Verizon Communications Tuesday to turn over the name of a customer suspected of downloading songs over the Internet, handing a victory to recording companies in their fight against online piracy.

According to what I read in the complaint, the DMCA authorizes a publisher to subpoena the identity of an alleged copyright infringer. "...RIAA believed a computer on Verizon's internet service was distributing to the public for download unauthorized copies of hundreds of copyrighted sound recordings..."

Was the verizon subscriber targeted because he was downloading RIAA music files, or because he was publishing (offering for download) RIAA music files?

Enquiring minds want to know? I expect a retraction (or a re-write) of the Reuters quote any time now. I suspect the RIAA FUD campaign is working too well, inadvertently causing some journalist with average integrity to because a part of their FUD engine. Can a publisher assert copyright infringment charges against a posessor (rather than a publisher) of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work?

So go ahead...sue me!

[mestes1999]

In recent weeks I have had KaZaa open 24/7 for sharing. Not 600 files, I share over 3000 files, simply to thumb my nose at these zealots.

With this said, let us take into consideration a suit by the RIAA against me, given that they get my name and information. A cease and desist letter? Sure, I'd probably cease, but what if I continued to share?

I'm a senior in college. I own a crappy car, rent an apartment, and have quite low income. So what then? What will they get if they sue me? Nearly nothing. They can have my student loan, my car, and my apt. Kick me off my ISP, I'll find another.

The RIAA seems to not understand that civil lawsuits mean nothing to those who have nothing. This means most college students. This means most of the file sharers.

Do you think I'd be downloading all the free music I want if I could afford it? (Yes, probably, but I'm just making a point)

Re:Come on!

[CharlieO]

As I see it the music industry has two models:

1) Physical ownership - i.e. you own the music CD

This is like buying a book - you decide what to do with the CD, lend it to your mates, play it in the car, your laptop whatever

2) Licensing - i.e. you buy a license to listen to an album, the CD is just a delivery medium

This is basically how most software is shipped.

But copy protecting CD's hurts the consumer in both ways.

If I own the CD outright then I'm entitled to my money back because you crippled it and it won't play in my laptop - the goods are faulty.

If I license the music then once I have the delivery medium I'm entitled to listen to the music anyway I want - but I can't because it won't play in my laptop.

Now try as I might I can't see another 'model' that the music industry can use.

Music wants to be made and the people involved must be compensated for thier skill and effort. I want to listen to a good range of music in a way that is convenient to me and I'm willing to provide that compensation.

I'm fed up of hearing that an album is deleated, or I can only get track X on this compilation. I want to listen to music that I've already heard or heard about and I'm willing to pay for it.

The challenge for the record industry is to build a buisness model on that, which sadly they show no inclination to do.

As one of my pasttimes I've run discos and compiled themed compilations for local pubs - all legal uses of downloaded MP3s as all the venues have paid thier PPL fees (This is in the UK) and yet I now can't find the one offs, the deleted tracks, the special mixes that I could on Napster.

Treat consumers like criminals 24/7 and they will start to act like criminals.

Bahh - sorry off topic a bit.