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?
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.
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.
...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.
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."
Like it or not, the DMCA is law now, and people breaking that law can expect to be prosecuted. The problem in this case, according to Verizon, is that the RIAA's subpoena does not comply with the DMCA, because the files are not hosted by Verizon, but rather reside on the subscriber's computer.
Care to be asshole buddies?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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)
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?