Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Set Back Again in DMCA Subpoena Case
NickV writes "Hope is getting direr for online privacy. The US District Court ruled today that Verizon must hand over the names of the two P2P downloaders. Hopefully Verizon can get a stay on the court order by the Court of Appeals. They have 14 days. Support the EFF! Without a serious lobbying group in DC, privacy will continue to be eroded."
are we going to catch these terrorists? Obviously it is a plot to destroy capitilsm and instill communism. Give everything away for free!
</sarcasm>
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
I thought that companies like verizion were common carriers, and that was exempt from subpoening [SP].
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
It was a virus!
void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
I hate those blood-sucking monopolist money-leaching bottom-feeding scum-sucking bastards. I hope they die a quick and unmourned death and free us from their tyranny. Perhaps this suit will play...
Wait, are they the good guys here? Long live Verizon!
There are serious privacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The problem is that most people don't find it a serious enough issue right now to donate big money to, and you're unlikely to see many corporations that wish to back them.
Not a rhetorical question here. There's an allegation that someone has broken a law. Verizon can identify that person. What is our interest in stopping them from doing so? How is this a "privacy" matter any differently from subpaenoing a witness to a car theft to testify as to what they observed?
Or do I misunderstand the case?
Without a serious lobbying group in DC, privacy will continue to be eroded.
Well, I can think of a number of serious privacy-related lobbying groups, though perhaps none with the power of the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Also, Verizon itself is not bereft of political power. Many universities and other ISPs were hoping that Verizon was big enough to win this.
That being said, I'm not as cynical as the majority here on Slashdot, who believe that the value of dollar is the only way to get things done in government. I would say a bigger problem is ignorance of technological issues among those who pass the laws in the first place.
Care to be asshole buddies?
If both people stole, then do the artists not have their music anymore? I'm confused.
Now corporations have more power than the cops, since cops need a judicial approval aka warrant to retrieve evidense/information.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
A lot of websites brag that they don't keep any logs. Can't Verizon do this too? Are they required to track who, what and where on your internet connection?
of your views on file sharing and its legality, it would seem to me that the larger issue here is the ability of a non-government organization to obtain private information for their own use.
Even if you agree that these people should be brought to justice through the use of this tactic because file sharing is wrong, this sets up a precedent for other situations which may not involve the noble goal capturing file sharers.
The quote from verizon's counsel says it best, "It's virtually unprecedented in U.S. law that someone can use a form to find out your identity without any judicial process."
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Does our privacy deserve to be gone at the whim of corporate America? Do we really want to allow companies to demand information about consumers without a subpoena ? Are corporations now as powerful as the government? This isn't a question about illegal acts. It's about the limiting power of non-government entities to spy on us.
I don't expect anyone short of the US Supreme Court to overturn this descision. There's no way to argue this case without turning to the constitutionality of the DMCA and its far-reaching privacy implications, and that's going to have to go to the USSC.
I'm actually looking forward to the DMCA's day in court, though I'm not sure this is the ideal case for it, since it combines too many gray areas of the DMCA with business-vs-privacy with the unconstitutional elements of the DMCA. Still, I expect the only possible outcomes would be a) it's not reviewed by the USSC or b) there's some setback for the DMCA here, large or small....
If it does go that far, the RIAA would be smart to simply drop the case.
The analogy is incorrect. :)
A judge put Kenneth Lay under house arrest.
The RIAA is not a judge.
The problem isn't this specific case, it's that it would allow the RIAA to subpoena ANYONES information. Because there would be no judicial process, they would not have to prove you actually did anything wrong.
CNET and MP3newswire.net also have stories on this.
neener neener, I'm bothering.
It's not the same as walking into Borders and yoinking a cd, since noone is really directly hurt.
And unless the downloader is making his own CDs and selling them for 1/2 price, then he's really not doing anything but looking at art.
Recording radio shows isn't illegal(I hope), this is no different.
Either way, if the listener enjoys the music, he may pay 40 bucks to see the band in concert, and pay 20 bucks for a ill-fitting t-shirt.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Basically, Verizon and all other ISPs are going to have to foot the bill for the RIAA's problem.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I am an avid /. reader, and a privacy/YRO advocate, and it saddens me when I realize that 90% of the people I know haven't even HEARD of the DMCA or the Patriot Act or the EFF, or any of it.
It seems to me, that the EFF could be likened to organizations like GreenPeace. Everyone who has ever been on a college campus knows what Green Peace is, but incase you don't they are a group of volunteers that solicit people for supporting their cause - that cause being supporting the environment through legal actions (lobbying, etc).
Why don't we have people on campus letting people know about their freedoms, about the lies spread by the RIAA/MPAA, and about *what can be done to help* ?
no comment
Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act.
I assume you mean this in a more narrow sense than you stated it. Note that neither of those two Verizon customers has been convicted of anything. They have only been accused. Are you saying anyone accused by corporation of doing something illegal deserves to lose their privacy?
The only reason Verizon is withholding the names is so all their subscribers. don't migrate to other services in order to prevent from being caught.
You didn't read the article did you? Verizon is fighting on behalf of all ISPs. Other services would be less able to fight this than Verizon. The only reason these two haven't been handed over to the RIAA is because Verizon objects to the DMCA.
I don't see anyone here crying about the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy
Did a judge place the Enron CEO under house arrest? Did a judge order the tracking bracelet? Did you read the article?!
Verizon is objecting to the fact that privacy can be pierced without judicial review.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Quite frankly sir, you are a troll.
If you actually think that a private party should be able to acquire a list of subscribers by submitting a form, you need to take a look at US judicial history.
Verizons case here sounds quite good to me. If you want to get a list of customers who bought a book in a bookstore for example, you need a warrant, and it's pretty fucking rare to see even that stand a legal test.
I think the difference here is rather insignificant. You may say that the law was violated all you want, but unless you have proof that a court approves of, you should be SOL.
The Key here is that they can request the information without having to go to a judge, and the company with the information must comply.
See how you all would feel if the BSA started using these Tatics.
The DMCA should be unconstitutional anyway. We need to push for a Right to Bear Technology. If theft has been committed, fine, call the cops and report them for theft. Just because a computer is involved doesn't create a requirement for a special law.
I don't like Verizon all too much but I like that they're defending our rights. If the RIAA gets this win they will become a completely hostile, big brother like entity. The DMCA is unconstitutional and I hope this case gets taken all the way up the ladder to the Supreme Court and that the RIAA gets it dick slapped.
...when the right of corporations to profit exceeds the right of individuals to privacy. The whole point of due process and search restrictions is that it's more important to protect the privacy of everyone, even if that means letting many criminals go free. Sure, no one's going to argue that MP3 trading of copyrighted works is legal, but neither is going 35 in a 25 zone, or drinking underage, or photocopying sections of books, or what have you. Where the hell are the anti-trust laws and campaign finance reforms when you need them?
I really don't see any way to destroy the RIAA without attacking their profits. The RIAA wants to turn our government into a police state just to ensure it's bottom line is well padded. The scary part of distopias like 1984 is not what is considered illegal, but how strictly it is enforced. When a private organization passes laws to protect its business model, and acts as a law enforcement agency without the consent of the people, I can't see how any attack on them, in any form could be considered immoral. We are confronted with a total hijacking of our government for the sake of profits. Artists be damned, copyrights be damned, I'm sick of this shit. That's why everyone should do everything they can to hurt the RIAA bottom line as much as possible. Buy no cds. Support live performances. Supply your (trustworthy) friends with free mp3's. The US government, especially when covered in republican parasites, will never choose the people over a lucrative corporation. Our only recourse is to not give them a DOLLAR.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
People are breaking laws all the time ... and some of them are likely driving right by your home. Now, we want *you* to start ratting on anyone that speeds by your home, or that goes by your house too often. We want you to keep full details on everything that happens outside your home. What... you can't? Well, let us install equipment in your house. Don't worry... any neighbors of yours we see speeding will be charge fairly with 10 billion dollar lawsuits -- and we'll let them know that *you* were responsible about a month before we haul them away forever.
When you give people freedom and liberty to use things like the Internet - you just dont know what they're gonna do with it ...
You know - like - create self-organizing p2p networks and then trade files with it.
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
This particular hypocrisy isn't new, it's ingrained into our society.
par example,
Code of the schoolyard.
Steal from me, and I'm telling teacher!
Tell on me for stealing, and you're an asshole.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok, I didn't RTFA, but can you explain to me, why the court order doesn't count as "any judical process"?
Current laws are so confusing that I don't know anymore whether I have anything illegal on my PC or not. And even if I didn't, this case sets a precedens - if Verizon looses, the RIAA (and anybody else) can ask for the identity of a ISP customer without a proof. (Remember, kids, this case is not about prosecuting a music pirate, but about showing any proof that the person is a music pirate before prosecuting him.) This has been one of my main reasons why I decided not to have Internet access at home. That means a loss for an ISP, all on-line stores and even RIAA members, as the only music store around where I live is a used CDs store. Maybe if there were a few million people like me, the courts will see the foolishness of RIAA's request and rule in favor of Verizon...
Throughout history, entire industries have come and gone because of changes in technology. Of course, up until now these have always been _legal_ changes, but the fact remains that the RIAA is desperately trying to cling to their old-fashioned model of business. I believe Jerry Holkins of Penny Arcade said it best. "The only people terrorized by peer-to-peer file sharing are vastly potent multinational businesses, gripped by the realization that they sell carriages in a world of bullet trains."
Amongst others of course, but these 2 points never seem to come up much.
1. A vast majority of the tracks I've download from P2P are of songs from the 80s. Those CDs are out of print now, and even if I were to go purchase the CD, I'd buy it at a used CD store.
The only people losing money in this situation is the used CD store, which in effect should help the RIAA because in their perfect world, there would never be any used CDs.
2. A few favorite albums that I own, I own on vinyl, CD, and possibly even cassette. I've purchased 3 copies of the same music. Likewise with some favorite movies. I own the VHS and the DVD. When the next technology releases these same media with a better sounding and looking format, I'll buy it AGAIN. No wonder they want the copyrights to never expire-the technology improvements are an eternal cash cow.
To correct your example: Instead of a subpaena, how about an email request for testimony? Oh, it's a 23 year old clerk asking for it, too. Not a lawyer.
"Those who use freedom to download music don't deserve freedom or music at all."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Are corporations now as powerful as the government?
Corporations own the government.
...designed to draw my attention towards bad music.
You should RTFA. The issue goes like this:
RIAA: Hey give me the names of these two people
Verizon: Uh, get a court order
RIAA: No, the DMCA says we can get the name of anybody we accuse of stealing without a court order.
Verizon: That sounds unconstitutional. A judge should decide if your case has sufficient merit to pierce their right to privacy.
RIAA: Judge! They won't give us the names of people that the DMCA says we can have without a court order.
Judge: Okay Verizon, do what the DMCA says.
Verizon: I think you should reconsider, Judge. The DMCA is unconstitutional.
Judge: It's the law, I am not changing my decision.
Now verizon has to appeal to a higher court that the DMCA is unconstitutional. (hint: It probably is, and if it looks like this case will cause a constitutionality review by a federal circuit court, RIAA will drop the case and prevent that from happening. Does the name "Felden" ring a bell?)
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Why? They seem to be behind the curve on this one.
is to haX0r verizon's log hosts and `rm -rf /` them!
I read that last sentence as:
Without a serious lobbying group in DC, piracy will continue to be eroded!
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
Doesn't the phone company have to tell law enforcement who a phone number belongs too if asked? Don't they have to provide a list of numbers that that phone number has called if asked?
How is this different?
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I get subpoenas about copyright cases all the time, but, only 1-2 a day. It isn't any trouble to look up the logs and send it off. What ISPs are worried about is RIAA/MPAA dropping thousands of requests a week on them. The manhours used to get all that info is what is going to cost. The equipment is already there.
Michael Loves Me!
Do you know what that tool is? YOUR MONEY. If the way the music industry treats its customer REALLY bothers you, DON'T BUY ANY MORE MUSIC. That also means DON'T PIRATE MUSIC ONLINE EITHER. All you do is fuel their arguments that filesharing is killing their revenue stream, when no empiricial data exists to back that argument up.
Quit being a sheep.
I understand about the signed statements that the copyright will not misuse the information gather for purposes other than protecting their copyright, but the precendent is bad, very, very bad.
I don't personally download music from the Internet either. It may not be clearly right, or wrong, but it's not nearly right enough for me to feel comfortable with.
That said, this is still an ugly precedent to set. It's not about this case. It's about anyone with a copyright being able to approach a "clerk of the court" and get all of your personal information.
That's your name, your physical address (which they obviously have to keep to service your installation), and your billing information. All this occurs without a court order or the review of a judge.
Whether the recording industry has a legitimate gripe or not, it is unconscionable to toss aside centuries worth of due process precedent to catch people downloading music.
If you send your daughter off to college and one of her roommates plays around with Kazster, do you really want there to be no legal barriers in place to keep her personal information out of the hands of non-peace officers? If Joe Sleaze Ball can prove the he has a record and they downloaded it, does this give him the right to all their personal information?
It shouldn't. But under this system, it does.
In the past, that information was entrusted only to people that are held very accountable for there actions like judges and peace officers. Lawyers would keep information like that confidential because of the liability they'd be exposed to if it were abused and they were (traceably) the source. If I can sell a crappy record, does that really make me sufficiently accountable to receive the personal information of thousands of cute young college girls?
Perhaps in a perfect world.
that the RIAA do get all they want, the DMCA is signed into the constitution, and the patriot act is taught in school.
Leto's Peace, anyone?
They'll never forget this.
You Spelled "you" and "the" incorrectly, but got "FUCKNUT" right. Edumacation at it's best. You sure showed that guy.
For years now the RIAA has been ripping off the consumer, and as many musicians would tell you, even the musicians. Charging over inflated prices for one hit and 19 filler songs. They own the airwaves and use that to push the CRAP they sell. They are just aother big business just like the Telecoms that have been lobbying the goverment for year to pass laws that help them to further rip off consumers "LEGALLY". Now ("Techies, GEEKs, Hackers, Crakers, etc, etc..") own the world now...and we make the rules. The RIAA is just bitching because now the tables are turning. F&CK them.. I say Boycott music. Musicians need to go back to their roots. Cut out the RIAA and start performing again. Make their money at venues. Sell their CD's at their shows. And use the internet to spread the word. If they are good...It will become known. If they suck, much like the crap that the Big 5 push, then they wont. There is so much great music out there we dont know about because of the RIAA. It is time for them to go!
The vladinator is both a friend and a fan. QED.
Have the users in question been notified that they are the ones? It would suck if it turned out that it's me, and that the whole trouble is because I put my extensive "Yaz" collection up on Kazaa for a few days.
I agree that in the end that trading illegally is wrong, but what the High Court might do is take a look at the Amendment 4 and have a thought otherwise when it comes to the DMCA. What the DMCA is allowing is an unreasonable search and seizure. Here's where it gets tricky. Since the DMCA carries with it criminal charges it should therefore be subject to the highest of standards when it comes to a criminal investigation. If they had come with a warrant to look at logs I am sure Verizon would have complied, but they came when an act that circumvents the 4th Amendment. Indeed this portion of the DMCA should be ruled unconstitutional, it gives police powers to any copyright holder with no check on the authority. What if in the course of an investigation of one of these file traders they were found to be kiddie-pornographers? Could the evidence gathered by the request be used against them in a court of law? Would the entire case be thrown out? Very interesting questions indeed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Recording radio shows isn't illegal(I hope), this is no different.
a ltyradio.asp).
True, but (commercial) radio stations pay royalties to ensure artists get their share (http://www.bmi.com/songwriter/resources/pubs/roy
Besides, until the advent of satellite radio, it was imposible to receive a pure, digital feed of a signal being broadcast from a radio station. And you'd better believe that satellite radio companies pay tons in royalites (http://news.com.com/2110-1027-993368.html Thus, your comparison to radio stations is inadequate.
Except there's no proof that theft occurred... all the RIAA has is a number that might in no way be associated with piracy. This should be for neither Verizon to decide, to RIAA to request (unless done through judicial process).
Therefore, it's more like if Johnny X gets detention for tripping somebody in the halls, but gets a congratulation later on for stopping a bully from beating up on the class nerd. They're different, people, get the point!
So when ISPs are required to release customer information on open p2p connections and their respective users, and the open source community developes a self organizing, encrypted p2p network, using similar encryption technology to that of online purchasing (credit cards, etc) will the RIAA tackle encryption citing the DMCA? I'd like to see that hold up in a court. If all transmissions must be monitored for piracy, and one can not conceal the source of information, does this mean the RIAA and our ISPs have access to our credit card numbers when purchasing from amazon.com? If the same technology used to encrypt private information were applied tp p2p applications, such that the ISPs can't tell the difference between a credit card number and the Dixie Chick's latest hit, what would the RIAA do?
I can see a great business model now. We could create a law enforcement company and then we can do all kinds of things that regular cops couldn't do. We could be the Corporate IP Police. It would be a bunch of black suit lawyers and money. Thats all it takes. We can also then create a database of these "known felons" and then sell it creating more revenue. Hell we can even copyright that.
Of course there are legal problems with my idea but continuing to do this could make such a company viable. I can't believe that Congress believes that copyright owners (or should I see middle men) are the life blood of our economy. I thought it was the captains of industry?
Pfah. We need more libertarians, these right/left wing morons are messing everything up.
sri
Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act. The only reason Verizon is withholding the names is so all their subscribers. don't migrate to other services in order to prevent from being caught. I don't see anyone here crying about the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy, but of course it's perfectly OK to steal music from artists. Don't even bother replying that the analogy is incorrect, both people stole.
That's a really stupid, oversimplified opinion.
First off we're (almost) all criminals. Have you ever got a parking ticket? Then you're a criminal. Ever publicly perform "Happy Birthday" without sending in a royalty check?
Second, you clearly didn't RTFA. This case isn't about whether Verizon ever has to turn over the info, it's about what has to be proven and what procedures must be followed for it to happen. The DMCA is attempting to lower these standards.
Third, just because someone accuses you of a criminal, doesn't mean you are one. In America, you are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. See (2). Certain standards must be met before the police are given the right to search my house.
Fourth, the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency. Why should this information be given directly to them? They've already shown that they want to be a vigilante group. Where's the buffer that protects me from them?
Fifth, downloading mp3s is copyright infringement, not theft.
Finally, even criminals deserve a certain amount of privacy. Quote: "the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy" Actally, that not really as much a violation of is privacy as it is right right to move around freely. There aren't TV cameras inside his house broadcasting it for everyone to see, and there shouldn't be. Nor is he locked in the stocks in public square, so he obviously has some privacy left, although judging by your comment, you think he should be. That's really fucked up. Also, their had to be court proceedings in order for this to happen. The RIAA wants to be held to a lower standard than this.
Your "Well they're criminals, so fuck 'em!" attitude is really sad. It shows complete disrespect or total lack of understanding of some of the founding principles of the American criminal justice system, as well as general concepts of crime and punishment.
That attitude is them same one that got a lot of people burnt as witches. I could send you off to experience a justice system with fewer protections than ours.
Life is too short to proofread.
Along with Colleges, Universities, rich students, paraniod people, and so on.
I mean ISPs are being sued, Verizon has plenty of money, Where the hell is IBM? They have money.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
to ensure artists get their share
Note that I didn't use the modifier "fair" in front of "share".
Without a serious lobbying group in DC, privacy will continue to be eroded.
Don't you mean, stealing will still be illegal?
Spread the RC luvin'
This is a civil case, one group is asking for the private records of another, you should not have to turn over private information to any person who requests it.
When the police get a warrant, there is an impartial authority (the judge) who decides that such information is worth violating the one parties privacy.
The complaint is that there is no judicial oversite to these requests, and hence no protection for the individuals privacy.
The key point is that these people are being targetted despite not being convicted of a crime, or even charged. There isn't necessarily enough evidence to accuse them of a crime, which Verizon would like to happen first.
This is part of the process called "discovery," where the sides get to collect information about each other for a suit. Technically, a subpoena IS part of a legal process. You generally don't get to serve one unless you already have a case pending in court. That's why it is backed up by the power of the court. If you comply with a subpoena, no problem. If you refuse to comply, you can be found in contempt of court. If you have a problem with the subpoena, you take it to the judge hearing the case.
And that's what happened here. Verizon didn't like the ruling, so they've been appealing it to higher levels in the court system, and I'm assuming that the rest of the case is being continued until this matter is resolved.
This is just a strategic move on the part of the RIAA. They really don't believe that they're going to get any money out of these people. They knew that going in. What they're trying to do here is intimidate both ISPs and users. However, if they think this is going to stop piracy, they're wrong. I can think of a lot of ways to share music without using the Internet, and I'm not the only one.
If they manage to drive file sharing off the Internet, file sharing is just going to pop up in another format. Until they start charging a price only modestly above margin for CDs, this isn't going to end. Has anyone noticed that DVDs are tending to be much cheaper than CDs? And we all know that movies (and DVDs, for that matter) are *much* more expensive to produce than music. Right now, the RIAA is in the middle of learning a very painful lesson about economics and markets. They're lashing out at what they perceive to be the problem, but it's not going to work.
IAAL
IAAL
The Founders are probably spinning in their graves.
Now I'm going to call up your ISP and they will give me your home address.
I mean all I have to do is accuse anyone I dont like of copyright infringement and suddenly their ISP is forced to give me their information.
How do you like that? Should I call your ISP up right now?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The difference is a judge decided that it was reasonable to assume this guy had done something illegal and might flee if left unwatched. The judge decided that there was at least some evidence this guy had doen something.
In the Verison case, the RIAA has assumed this person has done soemthing illegal and now wants their name. The RIAA is under no burden to prove that there is in fact any evidence he did, they only have to reach the point where they can suspect he did. In such a case, anyone (you, me, or even the village idiot) could suspect you had violated their copyright and thus request your name. Let's for example, say that a stalker was folllowing you online. In order to get your name, all they would have to do is get a little information (ip address), file a patent or copyight, and then go to Verison and claim you violated it and that they need to give you taht person's name. All that stalker would need to do is claim you violated it and Verison is forced to supply your name. If you don't see the potential abuse of this, both private and corporate, then you should pull the wool from in front of your eyes. No one thinks that Verison shouldn't supply the name if there is reasonable evidence. We all just would feel a lot safer in trusting a judge to decide what is 'reasonable evidence' as opposed to the RIAA deciding. As to the insulting tone of your post, it sounds to me like you are just taking such a hard-line stance becuase you are in fact hiding something. I suspect you have violated one of my copyrights! You have committed an illegal act and your privacy should be gone! I demand your real name!
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
What stops me from say, going down a list of random people I dont like, and calling their ISPs, then getting their address and killing them all one by one down the list?
Theres no privacy at all if this is law, anyone not just the RIAA, but ANYONE can claim you are a copyright infringer.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
10 print "hello world"
20 Goto 10.
I claim copyright. I am a incorporated llc, and this is software i created. I think that slashdot readers may be violating my copyright. I demand that Slashdot turn over the full lists of all their readers so i can sue them.
Can anyone see why they can say no?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Ahh! my head hurts! i better go recompile my linux kernel.
Thats one way to make the law useless, write the bot which simply sends massive amounts of infringement forms, not just for people on kazaa but just going down the list of random IPs accross every possible network.
Then you could pressure the ISPs to the point that they are swamped, and let the ISPs get together to change the laws.
Also you could do this to confuse the RIAA.
Civil Disobedience.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
if you commit an illegal act
If, not when some group merely accuses you of doing so.
I think we should punish people AFTER they are convicted, not before.
I could say you infringed on my copyright with absolutely no proof, and they'd give me your address.
So lets begin, calling all hackers, calling all hackers, lets see whos first to write the new hacking tool, lets called it the Address Sniffer, you just put in someones IP, and wait, a few days later the program shows you an email msg from the ISP with the address.
God, I really hope this law doesnt pass, I'll have to hide my IP using proxies and whatever due to fear that everyone online will be able to sniff my address.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I think this is perfectly valid no matter the reason. (stop after precedent) Such things are being done in the name of Anti Terrorism as well we must remember.
Apart from the fact that most people are considered innocent until found guilty. Silly troll.
Because the RIAA are just a group of people, like us, we could all do the same thing.
Its like terrorism, anyone can label someone a terrorist, but does this mean everyone I call a terrorist suddenly has to get tracked by the CIA and FBI, and suddenly their address and face posted all over the place?
No. Just because I call someone a terrorist doesnt mean they actually are one, I need evidence.
Just because I say someone is a copyright infringer doesnt mean they actually are.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If you buy a CD, money goes to the composer as well as the artist, record company, store, distributor, etc. etc.
Two points here as follows: I agree. Giving out customer information without due process to the RIAA is a very dangerous precedent. It leaves companies like Microsoft and others the rights to kick down one's doors in a vigilante style that scares me. However, I agree with the RIAA that theft is wrong.
For point two, possibly the RIAA could concentrate its enormous resources and zeal into electing into office some people who could help us out of this crippling deficit in the U.S?. To me the RIAA is chasing away a few sparrows drinking water out of their bucket while a big hole in the bottom (our government spending policies, tax breaks for the rich) actually let their water/money drain away. Most people I know have skinnier wallets now than a few years ago. I am not buying many CD's and neither are they.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Verizon Corp. must reveal the identities of two high-speed Internet subscribers accused of illegally trading music online, a federal judge ruled today.
See, they caught people trading music illegally. They want their names. Verizon not handing over subpoenaed evidence is basically aiding and abetting.
If you're pirating music, you're breaking federal law, so tough fucking cookies. I hope they fry these fuckers.
I didnt think I'd see the day where we'd all be forced into using freenet, but if these assholes think they can destroy the internet just to protect some fucking music files, we have to defend the internet in the only way possible.
Is it worth it to see the whole internet destroyed just because a few music companies want to make money? I MEAN THE WHOLE INTERNET?!
The music companies arent important enough to be allowed to ruin and destroy the internet
So if you want to support true annonymous connections, support freenet.
http://freenetproject.org/qcms/
It needs donations, I say if they dont want to let us use the real internet, we use an encrypted internet, what they will do is simply help freenet develop faster because they more they ruin the net, the faster freenet will gain support.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Sorry, the only consumers being ripped off are those who let themselves get ripped off.
I generally don't buy CD's because they aren't worth that much money.
This is my choice, it is a free market.
All this talk of "beefs" and "cash cows" is making me hungry.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I think you mean this guy
I don't have a link. I got this from Kazaa.
1:08pm 04/25/03
Judge rules in favor of Napster follow-ons By Russ Britt (CBS Marketwatch)
In a case that could turn the tide on online piracy, a Los Angeles judge ruled Friday in favor of online file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus, saying the two companies are not liable for online piracy by users of their service. The follow-on services to Napster -- which was forced to give up sharing of music files -- were sued by several major entertainment companies who sought to take the firms to trial. But U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled in favor of the two firms. A third online file sharing service, Kazaa, is not affected by the ruling.
--if this is how it works, it seems to me that it would be *quite legal* for anyone who has puchased a CD to use the dmca laws to fill out a form and demand that the riaa and their member corporations hand over all their records and traffic and emails because they are suspicious that they have indeed conspired to illegally fix prices and defraud investors and artists.
Why would that would be different? If they say it isn't a "copyright" issue, I'd counter that and say "yes it is because you are not paying the owners (the original musicians) their fair due under your transferred contracts of copyright, and are colluding to artifically maintain an erroneous set of books to hide and obfuscate your true business costs",because anyone "you" as a consumer who has purchased the use of the copyright with that CD does not have to suffer an illegal artificially raised price, i.e., it "involves" copyright issues and serious folding green. They've already been caught at it numerous times, both the recording industry and the movie industry, who with a straight face can claim that a movie that grosses a couple hundred million "cost" them money and they made nothing off of it. Several actors have sued studios and won, same with some musicians have sued and won, and the government has prosecuted them for payola and price fixing before, so there's prior examples that would tend to substantiate probable cause.
I say if this is applicable, then some people need to go after them and do just that. Demand just mountains of records, because you'd need all of them to sort it out. See how they like it. I imagine there would also be some interesting contacts with various legislators as well found in the records, and more likely than not, some underlings might be quite eager to turn over some additional information if that meant they might be let off the hook so to speak.
I mean, who thinks they AREN'T crooks and that their records are squaky clean?
Thought so.
Any EFF lawyers around want to comment? A coalition of musicians and cd purchasers could do this I think.
Maybe if Verison loses, we'll all be motivated to egt off our fat asses and actually do something about it instead of just sitting in front of a computer all day reading slashdot... Nahhh!
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
You may disagree, but if more people agree with me than with you, then you and the CEOs are shit outta luck, huh?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Just because you are a hero in one situation, does not mean you can't be a villain in another.
So there is no two-faced-ness here, at all.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
The laws have changed, now you are guilty until proven innocent.
I think its almost time to leave America and go to a place more free, like China.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
When people hear about these types of things, they almost always assume that whoever is accused is guilty. They believe that those demanding the information have cold, hard evidence of illegal activities. Many people don't think that laws forcing companies to give out information about their subscribers' activities is an infringement on privacy. This is the reason that laws legalizing privacy infringement are being passed without any public outcry. I guarentee you, though, that blood hell would be raised if the gov't. required monitoring all activities inside one's home. The reason these laws go unchecked is because of public ignorance. People see the computer as a whole different world than their "real life". Laws like this and precedents backing them will only lead to the gov't. being able to monitor every action you make online and with the lovely new anti-terrorist laws we are well on the way to the foundation on the Thought Police and the MiniTruth. Speaking out to get rid of these laws is important, but educating the public about computers is far more important. How can you expect people to act against such laws if they don't understand what the law actually does?
;)
Is this redundant as hell? Yes. Do I care? Well I typed it so I guess not. I needed to say it.
God, I really hope this law doesnt pass
will someone please wake this guy up with a large cup of expresso to bring him to the recession filled world that was left from the internet boom?
the law was passed back in 98 or so.
If the goal is to *force* a review of the DMCA, then any copyright holder can sue another person, and both keep appealing till it reaches the federal courts... why does one need RIAA to be the other party ?
- Not actually read the article (there was NO COURT ORDER OR JUDGE INVOLVED yet, people!)
- Never seems to reply to any of the intelligent retorts from privacy advocates here (not that all of them are).
I would hereby like to see an intelligent response from someone who thinks this issue is only about a bunch of whiny KazaaLite-users who don't want the bottomless cookie jar taken away!(Hey, incidentally... those BitTorrent thingies ROCK.
Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted).
Yes but this specific new addition that the RIAA is trying to tag onto the DMCA, in which anyone anywhere can label anyone a criminal without proof.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Should we even get into the fact that the RIAA created the black market by price fixing? It's kinda hard to have sympathy for an organization that tries to defy economic laws by using legislation.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Do they get a trial first? Or do we let the RIAA start shooting people on sight?
> I don't see anyone here crying about the Enron CEO
> being placed under house arrest with a tracking
> bracelet, violating his privacy
AFTER BEING CONVICTED.
Quoth:
What!?! You mean things aren't always good/evil or black/white? Welcome to the real world! Makes it hard to make snap decisions and prejudice accusations, doesn't it? Oh, the humanity!
Privacy? You are distributing copies of music in violation of copyright laws, publically, everyone can see the materials that are being illegally traded. And you want your privacy- privacy to maintain your ill gotten collection?
The only one who's rights are being trampled here are the copyright holders.
Exactly where does the constitution guarantee a right to privacy? I know that there are some clauses that have been INTERPRETED to grant rights of privacy, but these are mere interpretations -- and interpretations can be re-interpreted.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You sure learned me. I mean, I've really been shown the error of my ways. Not only that, but you've completely shown me that Copyright Violation is not only not theft but it also protected as a right by both the 2nd and 5th Amendments and the U.N Charter. You are certainly the master debater, arn't you?
You fucking fart knocker.
Minor change - you don't have to file copyright.
This I'm writing here is copyrighted, since it's a new expression.
Bing!
Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act.
I assume you mean this in a more narrow sense than you stated it. Note that neither of those two Verizon customers has been convicted of anything. They have only been accused. Are you saying anyone accused by corporation of doing something illegal deserves to lose their privacy?
They are not convicted, correct. But they are obviously involved in copyright violation. They are being idetified for prosecution. They will still have a right to defend themselves in court. BTW: Last I saw, a corporation can read your e-mails on the company network, check your desk, etc., if they suspect you of anything. It all belongs to the company, kind of like how these criminals do not own Verizon but are renting its use.
you? Verizon is fighting on behalf of all ISPs. Other services would be less able to fight this than Verizon.
There is not fight here. The ISP will not be charged with anything as the DMCA allows the ISP to remain guiltless in the transaction across its gateway. The ISP will not remain guiltless if it doesn't comply with the court order. Its like if I am a landlord and you are sellng drugs from your apartment, I have to help the cops nab you, but I am not going to be held liable for drug dealing myself.
Don't even bother replying that the analogy is incorrect, both people stole.
You know full well that the analogy is incorrect. Even if the person in question was sharing music, that is not stealing - it is a copyright violation. But its not stealing since nobody suddenly loses something.
Of course we don't know if he did break any laws since the music industry does not need to prove anything, they just need to point and accuse. Which is of course the way the US seems to work at the moment...
"Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act... Don't even bother replying that the analogy is incorrect, both people stole."
Innocent until proven guilty. Whether or not they 'stole' is up for the court to decide. They cannot arrive at that decision until due process is followed.
"Derp de derp."
This occured to me yesterday in the shower, how does the RIAA know what these two people downloaded? Do they have gigantic sniffers on the backbone (ala carnivore) or are they breaking into people's computers to rummage around hard drives?
Neither posibility feels good. And if this isn't illegal, shoudln't it be?
I use Verizon as my cell phone carrier. On one hand, I like what they're doing here (most probably in their best interest); but I don't like them for sandbagging the proposal which allows cellphone customers in the U.S. to keep their numbers when they switch carriers.
sorry, i'm not up for some quick googling. i'm trying to get the kde 3.1.1 working under cygwin this afternoon.
that provision is not a new part of the DMCA that i know of. it's been part of the law since it was signed by mr. cigar clinton. the RIAA is just now exercising that part of the law after they spent their lawyer money on the napster and other things in the past years, now it's time to go after joe schmoe and they have their law to use to do it.
DMCA authorizes a *subpoena* not warrant. You need to be aware of the legal differences here.
From the TN bar association website:
A subpoena is a written court order requiring the attendance of the person named in the subpoena at a specified time and place for the purpose of being questioned under oath concerning a particular matter which is the subject of an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit. A subpoena is issued by someone authorized by law, usually by the attorney for a party to a lawsuit, but very often issued by someone authorized to conduct an investigation such as the State Attorney General or local District Attorney.
In addition to requiring the attendance of a person, a subpoena may also require the production of a paper, document, or other object relevant to the particular investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit. Usually a subpoena directs that the person named appear and give testimony in open court. However, certain subpoenas require the person to appear before a person or tribunal other than a court, such as a grand jury.
A warrant, on the other hand, is a writen court order for the legal seize or search of property, or for the arrest of a person. Regarding civil and criminal cases, the discovery period is still in effect, and subpoenas are protected in either case.
The next step is to use a system which is built to protect your identity, like Freent. And it appears that this will happen, given the current situation.
Of course, once this is done corporations will lobby to outlaw any form of online encryption or anonymity whatsoever. It's wholely unconstitutional but what the fuck does that matter anymore?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Ok, but I think the DMCA refers to copyright holders which includes corporations and individuals.
Here's the idea. What if anyone (I'm sure you have a copyright on something) makes a random claim that someone else is infringing on the copyright. The RIAA did this, right?
I mean, actually do it. Find a figurehead of somewhere and submit a request for the account information on whoever and claim they infringed on your copyright. Try to get the press to notice it too. Would this work?
Must be very nice for RIAA that they can afford to buy and own the judge to rule against Verizon. I wonder how many millions the judge got "hush-hush" from RIAA...
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Aside from the constitutional issues with the DMCA, in an age of wireless LANs, I would suggest that there is increasingly an issue of whether there is probable cause for a search warrant of an access customer's premises and equipment based merely on the tying of allegedly illegal activities to an IP address allocated to that customer at the time that the activities were allegedly committed. For example, I live in an apartment building. In addition to my own wLAN, there are five (count 'em) wLANS, three of which aren't even encrypted (and using such imaginative names as Linksys and default). My point is that, at least in high density areas, there are plenty of wLANS on which third parties can piggyback--and such should be factored into any determination of probable cause.
This is an official flame
You sound as stupid as the fucking taliban. You dumb mother fucker, how can you say that the law is more important than our freedom?!!?! So if we make it against the law to have freedom of speech, we make slavery legal again, we make it against the law for women to work, and force them to wear sheets over their face.
Of course freedom isnt important, whatever is law is right! You are stupid, you should go live in a place where there is no freedoms or rights, like afganastan where everyone follows the law, and no one has any freedom, or maybe you'd like Iraq? How about you go over there? We dont need fake Americans over here trying to make our great country as fucked up as other countries which we constantly claim to be better than.
Its guys like you who make me want to leave America. You idiot.
End of flame
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
So what happened to innocent until proven guilty and due process ? You've made your decision based on WHAT FACTS, or legal process ?? I agree that pirating MP3's is a crime, but to compare an adminstrative order issued by the COMPLAINTANT (RIAA), to a legally binding write issued by a federal authority after an investigation is foolish. Make the RIAA go to a judge and provide basis for a write and require judicial review JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER NON FEDERAL entity has to go through. The issue of the crime is moot here it is the observance of DUE PROCESS as required by OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I was in a debate with a co-worker about where the blame for the DMCA lies.. and realized that neither of us are sure of the facts.
Did the entertainment industry draft the law, and then shove it down the throats of some unsuspecting lawmakers? Or did a desperate music industry beg lawmakers for some tool to allow them to enforce their property rights in the New Age, and end up getting the 'end all, be all' of copyright law handed to them by evil lawmakers?
I think that the answer to this question really affects where my (and our) hostility should be directed.
-Fatty
I hereby accuse you of an illegal act. Please send me your real name, address, blood type, SSN, and credit card numbers immediately.
Hey, the verizon subscribers weren't convicted of anything either, just accused, so, pony up now, hypocrite.
The DMCA was brought forth by a ~72 (present age) year old representative from North Carolina. This old man named Cobble, probably can't even figure out how to log onto windows, much less understand the digital world. He has never held a position in the IT or MIS world. Clearly he was just a puppet. Check out his website at:
http://www.house.gov/coble/
Also, the DMCA was signed by into law by a Democrat. Keep that in mind.
Either way it's a bad law. The world knows it. Simply put; the old farts that have the power, either D or R, simply don't understand the digital world. They never will. Only when younger blood moves to DC will things ever change.
Guys like that guy who made the parent post, claiming that we should have no rights because its the law, I mean damn
If they decide to remove the constitution, because thats they law they want to pass, and suddenly we live in a 1984 style police state, hey everyone follow the law and be sheep, no more rights just do your job, grow old and die.
This guy would love that. I cannot understand how people can hate democracy, we have arabs in Iraq who actually want the taliban or other similar groups to rule over them, they dont want democracy.
I think theres people in this country who want a police state, they want the government and corperations to rule over everything we do, no more privacy because we might break the law! Put cameras everywhere, even in our house, sue you for not paying your taxes on time, watch every person on the internet to make sure they dont speak bad about any president, company or CEO, watch everyone at work to make sure no one steals a pencil or pen, have cameras surrounding everyones car and inside them to make sure no one tries to break any laws, oh an monitor brainwaves so you can arrest people before they commit crimes, get them while they are still thinking about it.
I mean you think about it and it means you were going to do it right? Guilty until proven innocent is the new law, which means if I say you stole from me but I cannot prove it, you stole from me and you go to jail for as long as I decide.
I decide what software you can and cannot use, what music you can and cannot listen to, and for how long, I decide when you will pay me and how much, I decide how much money you make and where you make it, and I decide the laws.
No You, just I, you get to sit obey me for the rest of your life, obey my laws, buy only my products and music, and work for my company and if you dont, you can go to jail, because I have all the money and you have none.
This is the America you want to live in?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The time has come for the end of the RIAA. It has outlived it's usefulness (was there ever any?). The buggy whip corporation is now attempting to cling to it's profits by stripping us of our rights and privacy.
BOYCOTT!
Stupid mods. :(
But to the AC post: The problem, as other have explained ad nausium, is that the subpoenas were not issued by a judge, but by the RIAA. If the RIAA wins this case it means that ANY company can ask for private records about YOU because they think you are violating their copyright. They don't need enough probable cause to convince a judge that you've done anything at all. This opens the system up for a sea of abuse the likes of which we have never seen.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Much as I like (and support) the EFF, I could not be more upset to know that they do not have an office in DC. The reality of lobbying is similar to that of VC financing: if your startup is not within a 10 minutes drive of the VC office, forget about fundings...
> If I can sell a crappy record, does that really
> make me sufficiently accountable to receive the
> personal information of thousands of cute young
> college girls?
Yes and their panties as well. Is this not the dream of any young man who has picked up a guitar or started a band in their garage? Thankfully, the DCMA has provided for musicians once again. No longer will you actually have to play a show to find groupies. Now, you can just turn to the phone records in whatever town you may be in and invite yourself over.
-Alec
I don't think Joe needs to prove anything, just claim it.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
The only good M&M is the green one anyway, what a woman!!!
My brother wastes his money in other stupid ways. Chrome exhaust tips don't make your car go faster.
So what would it take to introduce the same issue to Verizon by someone that is against the DMCA? Let's say I make a song.. and a terrible song it would be. I could then sell one CD of this crappy song to my wife for $1 and then she could then rip it to MP3 and place it on a P2P network via a verizon pipe. Once the first person downloads the file, I then go to verizon and demand the name of the person that downloaded the song. They would refuse and then we could take it to the USSC, with the intent of the ruling in favor of Verizon. I wouldn't drop the case, nor could anyone prove that this was a setup. Since the person that posted the item was my wife, she can't be forced to testify against me, nor I against her.
Probably wouldn't work; however, I don't want the RIAA to pull out of this one when they finally realize how unconstitutional this is.
Wow. "fucking fart knocker.' You must be AT LEAST 8 then. Maybe 9.
But they are obviously involved in copyright violation.
Guilty until proven innocent. I don't like your style.
They are being idetified for prosecution. They will still have a right to defend themselves in court.
As if a discovery subpoena has never been used for an illegitimate purpose.
Last I saw, a corporation can read your e-mails on the company network, check your desk, etc., if they suspect you of anything. It all belongs to the company, kind of like how these criminals do not own Verizon but are renting its use.
Did you really mean to say that? Are you saying the phone company has the right at any time to tap your phone calls? Look up "common carrier" and "reasonable expectation of privacy". There is a world of difference between your employer monitoring internet usage and an ISP doing so.
The ISP will not remain guiltless if it doesn't comply with the court order.
Note how you fell into the trap already. You said "court order". The DMCA says they need no such thing. That's what this fight is over. RIAA didn't start with a court order for Verizon to provide these people's identity. They just said "Tell us, you have no choice"
The court has not said "we order you to reveal the identity of these individuals because the RIAA has a probable chance of success in litigation", the court has said "we order you to reveal the identity of these individuals because RIAA has complied with the DMCA"
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
The argument is not weather or not the rights of the people commiiting illegal acts should be restricted. I really don't care what happens to them. I do however care about the process which this happens. If this sort of activity by the government and corporations continues there may be no line which seperates my privacy or free speech.
Guilty until proven innocent. I don't like your style.
Yeah, that Scott Peterson, hasn't been convictied of murdering his wife. Why is he in jail??? He hasn't been found guilty yet. Look, this is all about building a case against the infringers and a judge HAS okayed it. Read the article. The JUDGE said give the information up.
As if a discovery subpoena has never been used for an illegitimate purpose.
As if the guilty don't try to hide behind unreasonable arguments for "privacy."
You said "court order". The DMCA says they need no such thing. That's what this fight is over. RIAA didn't start with a court order for Verizon to provide these people's identity.
According to the article, a judge is involved. The order for Verizon to give up the names comes from a Judge John Bates, US District Court. A subpeona has to come from the court, and so it was filed with the court. It is simply that the misuse of P2P networks is so widespread that there is little need to prove that illegal activity is going on and it is granted automatically.
Who do you think buys most of their products? Who do you think is busy support open source linux? Think about their business and then respond.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No.
Verizon isn't being asked to destroy anyone's privacy. They are being asked to deliver the identity of an individual that the state has sufficient reason to believe has commited illegal acts using Verizon's network.
The same logic applies apart from the network-centric world of Slashdot. Suppose someone broke into a Walmart and stole a rifle. If he then shot three people with that rifle, would Walmart be threatening anyone's prviacy by handing over a surveillance tape to the police? No, they wouldn't.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
From an AP interview with Senator Rick Santorum on Apr. 7, 2003:
This isn't some wacko saying this. (Well, not some random wacko, anyway.) This isn't some RIAA or MPAA shill. This is a United States Senator. And we wonder how laws like the DMCA get passed?
They are not convicted, correct. But they are obviously involved in copyright violation. They are being idetified for prosecution. They will still have a right to defend themselves in court. BTW: Last I saw, a corporation can read your e-mails on the company network, check your desk, etc., if they suspect you of anything. It all belongs to the company, kind of like how these criminals do not own Verizon but are renting its use.
The are not obviously involved in copyright violation. They are being accused of being involved in copyright violation. Trying to get ANY information from an ISP traditionally requires a court-order, as the ISP can be sued for providing information without one. Your analogy regarding using company resources for personal business is comparing apples to oranges.
There is not fight here. The ISP will not be charged with anything as the DMCA allows the ISP to remain guiltless in the transaction across its gateway. The ISP will not remain guiltless if it doesn't comply with the court order. Its like if I am a landlord and you are sellng drugs from your apartment, I have to help the cops nab you, but I am not going to be held liable for drug dealing myself.
You just proved the point of what the other people are telling you in this sentence. The operative word is COURT ORDER. Verizon wants the preceedent set that ANY request for information requries a search warrant.
To use your arguement, if you are the landlord, and the the RIAA comes by and demands to search every single apartment in your complex to look for copyright violations, are you obligated to comply? The answer is no, and in fact you would be in serious trouble with the residents of said apartment complex if you DID comply. SEARCHES REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT. It doesn't matter whether it's physical or digital.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
I forgot to add that the RIAA is NOT a police agency, they are a private business. You are only required to submit to searches by a member of a law enforcment agency, and even then only when served a search warrant or under "probable cause". I'll ignore the "Patriot" nonsense for the time being, because I consider it to be an abberation.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
That's too funny.
The law passed in 1998. The issue here is the court's interpretation of the law, and whether or not the court finds the interpretation unconstitutional. What you should have said is, "God, I really hope the court sets a good precedent and throws the injunction out!"
The subpeona is filed with the court. Sounds legal to me.
I'm curious as to what Verizon has to gain here. They can't possibly be doing this out of principle. So I really don't see why they're doing it. Pursuing this is costing them millions, and making them powerful enemies. And it's not like most users have heard of this case -- so they're not gaining themselves a significant number of customers. I really don't see what they have to gain.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
We all have something that is copyrighted. Be it your essays from grammar school or whatever. Which in turn means that I can claim it's been infringed and demand that Verizon deliver out your personal info without proof and without going to a judge. What would I want that, what would I use that for? _Whatever I want_. Send you a letter bomb, anthrax powder, stalk you, terrorize you, kidnap you, blackmail you (You're the one surfing that gay bestiality site, aren't you?), scare you or kill you. Imagine that instead of your nick, you were posting here and chatting on irc under your full name and address. Would you like that? No privacy, no anonymity, even if you have done *nothing wrong*.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
VERIZON VOWS TO CONTINUE BATTLE TO PROTECT ONLINE SUBSCRIBER PRIVACY
Saying that the privacy, safety and due process rights of perhaps
millions of Internet subscribers hang in the balance, Verizon will
ask a U.S. Appeals Court for a stay of a lower court ruling that
would force the company to reveal the identity of an Internet
subscriber accused of music piracy. Verizon is seeking to protect a
subscriber's privacy following a decision yesterday by U.S. District
Court Judge John Bates to deny our original request for a stay. The
case stems from a subpoena filed last summer by the Recording
Industry Association of American (RIAA) demanding that Verizon
Online turn over the name of a customer whom the RIAA alleges
possesses illegal copies of copyrighted music files on the
customer's personal computer. Verizon refused to comply, noting
that the subpoena did not comply with the requirements of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which applies only to files hosted
on an Internet company's network and not on the computer in a
subscriber's home or office. The RIAA sued Verizon to enforce the
subpoena
...the first stalker uses a copyright infringement claim to get information from an ISP that allows him to track down his intended victim. After that crime hits the TV news, the law will changed, but not before. :(
I figured I'd put it in small words you could understand. Now stop crying.
That is the thrust of the problem. The RIAA did not file a subpeona. They went to Verizon DIRECTLY, and demanded the information. If a subpeona is filed, then there's no problem, as you have at least some kind of judicial oversight, and it removes the onus of responsibility for the privacy of the end-user from the carrier.
Since I work for an ISP, I've had to refuse to provide information to people AND law enforcement agencies on several occasions. Only when served are we allowed to provide data on our subscribers.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
No copyright infringement has taken place. Since you're married, your property is also your wife's property. Her distribution of your song was completely legal, thus it was legal for your suspect to download it.
Since the person that posted the item was my wife, she can't be forced to testify against me, nor I against her.
If you conspired together, you lose marital priviledge. She might plead the fifth, but the judge could grant her immunity for her testimony.
Yeah, that Scott Peterson, hasn't been convictied of murdering his wife. Why is he in jail???
*eye roll* mmmmm.... red herring.
Read the article.
A subpeona has to come from the court, and so it was filed with the court.
Well, let's see what the article says:
The RIAA cited the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- or DMCA -- in its legal effort to force Verizon to reveal the names. The DMCA gives movie studios, record companies, software makers and other copyright owners the right to subpoena Internet service providers without getting a judge's approval.
You said:
It is simply that the misuse of P2P networks is so widespread that there is little need to prove that illegal activity is going on and it is granted automatically.
Unless you have evidence that the article is patently incorrect, I think you misunderstand the issue at hand. No subpoena was "granted" by the court. And the Judge isn't saying "Okay, well now I am granting the discovery subpoena", the ruling was based entirely on the powers the DMCA gives to a copyright holder. Verizon argues that the power is unconstitutional. As the article says:
Verizon originally argued that it is unfair for the music industry to be allowed to obtain subpoenas without judicial approval, but Bates threw out that argument in a January ruling. Verizon then turned to its argument that the DMCA is unconstitutional.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Uhh, isn't that what I said? And I doubt radios pay anyone anything.
It's the job of the company representing the artist to impose & collect the royalties. In most cases that's record companies. Read the bmi.com link that I posted.
Right now most college students still aren't real familiar with computers, but from my experience at high school everyone knows about file sharing. Everyone talks on AIM now, everyone runs kazaa, even the guys who booze over the weekend. The 4 year difference between my college sister and my highschool self is HUGE concerning the ability to use and understand computers. We may have to wait, but once these younger computer users who grew up with file sharing and AIM turn 18 rallying for this cause will be possible.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You'll note that this doesn't say "Congress shall make no law", "by the government" or any other POS argument that's been made against Free Speech, religion, etc.
What is privacy except the right to be secure in your effects against unreasonable searches?
Here we go. Once they win this, I predict that they'll send out Thousands? Millions? of letters to people and give them the opportunity to atone for their "copyright sins", for the low, low price of $N dollars per song, where $N is some reasonable number like $10? $100?. Because after all, they could get the people for 150k per song in a lawsuit but they're being generous and don't want to destroy their valuable customer base, there will be an amnesty. Kind of like the BSA.
I wish I had patented this business method: make something that's easy to make and for people to steal and get laws passed making massive penalties for stealing it, then once everyone's stealing, get more laws passed that make it easy to automate finding the thieves, then go out and get more money than you ever would have gotten if nobody had stolen anything.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
The RIAA did not file a subpeona.
Actually, I reread the article, it says that the subpeona was issued by the court clerk, NOT by the RIAA. It is a legal document issued by the court. Then, the judge backed it up. In order to get the subpeona they had to give evidence that copyright infringement was going on in a sworn deposition. So the idea they went direct is wrong if you'd read all the articles releated to this.
Here is the fact: form. Under the law, a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Sounds like the court issued it at the request of the copyright holders.
Look, if you are going to take a side, get the facts straight. I am trying to.
*eye roll* mmmmm.... red herring.
Just pointing out your illogic
No subpoena was "granted" by the court.
May I quote from the article: "Under the law [DMCA], a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge. Right there it says the subpena was issued by the court. You can argue that it should have judicial review, but the law doesn't require it. Now, under the law the copyright holder must provide significant reason for it to be issued as in the Washington Post article from April 25: Bates rejected Verizon's arguments, saying that copyright holders must provide detailed, sworn declarations in support of their request for subpoenas and that Internet service providers have the right to contest them.
In support of the law and the need to stop the rampant infringments the article has Bates saying Congress intended to enable copyright holders to move quickly to stop infringement, and that the harm RIAA suffers from continued infringement outweighed any harm Verizon might suffer by turning over the customer's name before the case is heard on appeal.
I would like to point out that as an indie filmmaker with an indie recording label I full support the DMCA to protect my investments. Unlike the majors I live close to the line in what I spend to make product and infringments hurt me triple.
Well, RIAA should attempt to confiscate all local and federal judges PCs.
If under DMCA they don't need a warrant or subpoena for 'John Doe' file swappers, well they should just demand all judges to hand over their PCs too, since they are just Joe Citizen in the eyes of the law. Maybe they were up to something?
While they are at it, RIAA can try to grab all federal, local, and state government PCs and networks, as well as all military, university, and private corporation computers and networks..
since internet data flows nationwide through various systems. Is a LAN switch akin to a get away car?
If enforcing copyrights is more important than personal privacy, RIAA might as well demand the house and senate and executive branch turn over all computers, electronic records, data files, etc. too...
I am sure they can be trusted without a doubt.
DMCA is Not a threat to national security,
or is it?
I am confused how supporting the EFF supports lobbying in DC. Is the EFF not located in California, jusr about as far as you can get from DC and still be in the US? If you really want to support lobbying in DC, try EPIC of the ACLU.
I'm not sure what you meant by But the RIAA never got a subpoena.
RIAA certainly did serve Verizon with a subpoena, on July 24, 2002. This is what the entire case is about, RIAA seeking to enforce that very subpoena.
You can read the January 2003 District Court Judge's order, which explains all of this.For downloading a movie with eDonkey2000! eDonkey automatically shares the files you are downloading. I stopped the movie half way through the download because it was taking too long and went to blockbuster and rented it.
So now 2 weeks later I get this letter from my ISP telling me to remove the movie and that they got a C&D from Universal Studios claiming I was distributing thier copyrighted work!
I dont have the damn movie! All i ever had was a few pieces and they were deleted when i cancelled the download!
This shit is ridiculous!
Well, damn! Get out there and start stalking!
No you diverted attention to a non-sequiter. The Scott Peterson case is a criminal investigation and as such has been overseen from warrant, through arraignment and to holding without bail by a judge. This is a civil case concerning a subpoena with no judicial oversight.
You can argue that it should have judicial review, but the law doesn't require it.
Isn't this what is being argued?
Now, under the law the copyright holder must provide significant reason for it to be issued
Under the law, the copyright holder, in order to obtain the subpoena from the court clerk, must provide:
The only "detail" is that the notification sent to the ISP must identify what work is being infringed and the complainant must provide a statement that they have a "good faith" belief that the manner in which the material is being used is not allowed by law.
Congress intended to enable copyright holders to move quickly to stop infringement
Regardless of the intention, the assertion by Verizon is that this tramples a persons right to privacy... And reducing basic civil liberties of citizens outweighs any harm copyright holders may suffer.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
If Verizon walks into court with a STACK of requests for names that may help prove their point that this will get WAY out of control!
Renounce your US citizenship at the Beijing embassy and then get back to us, Hanzo buddy.