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."
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?
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?
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)
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...
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!
They may have some immunity to punishment, but they can certainly be required to provide records. Phone company has to do this all the time for law enforcement, and they're the canonical "common carrier."
--ZS
-- sigs cause cancer.
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.
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
Some links: One Two
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.
Yes the RIAA and others do actually and routinely scan such large file sharing P2P networks as Kazaa and possibly others. This is how the RIAA found those 2 with Verizon and how they find out all those college and university students with music. With the result being they turn the colleges and universities into RIAA's bitches...
About the only thing you can do is run a good firewall and visit this site
http://koti.welho.com/ikindste/
And get a list of BAD IP and P2P Enemies IP lists. I have the last update from it running in Sygate Pro firewall here. Although im still looking for more updated lists as well.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy