Slashdot Mirror
Verizon to Reveal Customers in DMCA Subpoena Case
JulisJ writes "NYTimes reports that Verizon will turn over the names of online subscribers accused of swapping music. This could be a big blow to the file-swapping community, even if you're swapping legit." There's also a story on News.com. See our previous story for background.
"The Court of Appeals decision confirms our long-held position that music pirates must be held accountable for their actions and not be allowed to hide behind the company that provides their Internet service," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a statement.
Pirates by whose account? Their good guess? To the RIAA/MPAA we're all guily until proven innocent. We've already seen cases where the RIAA has made mistakes in identifying the true pirates. How many more mistakes are they going to be allowed to make without a penalty for their actions?
Mike
You 'Kids' need to understand that MOST file swapping is illegal, so the legit uses will suffer because of it.
Keep passing the open windows...
I think that the RIAA and MPAA have gone way too far. We don't need a private or secret police force in america, and we certainly don't need already super rich industries suing everyone with a DSL line to their home.
I'm truly begining to wonder when it is exactly that the public at large is going to stand up against this horrible abuse of power and perfect example of corruption of democracy and say, ENOUGH. This is getting very old very quickly and I'm tired of always hearing about the *AA lawsuits.
P2P is here to stay because people don't value the bilboard top $100 as worth $15 a CD, they value it as giving it the time to download the song. It's the same with anything else, entertainment is valued at what the consumer is willing to pay for it, it's the fact that these companies think that they're losing income. NO YOUR NOT, it's not that valuable to us and we're not going to pay for it so quit trying.
Is this concept really so hard to understand?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
After hearing this news many people are going to be discouraged by filesharing. This could be the end of people thinking they can get away with it.
So the implications will be:
1) People will stop sharing their files and leech
2) People will stop sharing and move over to services like eMusic/Apple.
3) Everyone starts using freenet!
The last option sounds the best, its the evolution of Filesharing like Kazaa was after Napster. The more they attack pirates the further underground they push them.
There is no god
It's not the RIAA who's ruining P2P for everyone else, it's the people who are abusing it.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Does it really matter? The RIAA gains more through these high-profile cases than they do through actually getting some sort of sentence through the courts.
That's dumb and counter-productive. Verizon has been supporting (probably at significant legal costs to themselves) the rights of these people to remain anonymous. To turn around and sue them is, to use a cliché, like biting the hand that feeds you.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
"It's akin to a journalist withholding a murderer's name"
No it isn't. Murder is a violent crime, usually punishable by death or life in prison, and involves taking the life of a human being.
Copyright infringement is in a wholly different realm of law from murder, or even shoplifting.
Please do not make apples-to-oranges comparisons and pretend that it supports your premise.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Hey tough guy, don't you get it? The day of government enforced corporate monopolies is slowly, grindingly dragging to a close. Why? The massive, hundreds of millions strong groundswell of public opinion is finally being given a voice, and that voice is P2P. How many times has Kazaa been downloaded? You think those numbers are exaggerated, or part of some Kazaa marketing spin?
We can and will download software, music, films, and anything else we can lay our paws on for nothing more than the cost of the connection. Why? Because we're sick of the overcharging and package stuffing indulged in by all the major producers? No. Because we are immoral and anarchistic criminals seeking to imbalance western economic equilibrium? No.
We do it because we can, and its cheaper than buying the damn things. A couple of examples are not going to stop or even slow down the tidal wave which is all around us. The floodgates that no one even knew were there are open, and they will never be closed again. Its over.
Sorry for your troubles, but if I was you I'd get into cabbage farming or something. Open source is not a viable alternative, its the only way its going to go! Anything that can be committed to an electronic medium should be immediately free.
You're wasting your time otherwise.
Methinks Verizon will lose many a customer over this.
That'd be a shame, since they're fighting it tooth and claw. Verizon's doing the Right Thing - it'd truly suck for their customer base to bust their chops for this.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
If it is so easy to get the ISP to reveal the identity of a P2P user, why not get them to give the names and addresses behind the accounts that send SPAM?
At least Verizon didn't in this case -- Good for them! There have been a number of cases where ISPs have just rolled over and released names. $cientology has done it a number of times with completely bogus copyright claims. (Theoretically they could be counter-whacked in court, but who wants to get in a legal battle with people who'll spend millions to avoid paying out "one thin dime"? [Although, in the end, they paid out over 80 million thin dimes, w00t!]) AOL rolled over for the US Navy without even a DMCA claim. "According to the sworn testimony of US Navy staff legalman Joseph M. Kaiser, he called AOL and immediately got the full real name and state of residence of the AOL member who owned the profile in question."
If the RIAA didn't check the files at the time, and assuming the files are long gone from computers involved, where's their case? (Pro-RIAA zealots? Where?)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Who are the four? Has Verizon contacted the alleged offenders and said "The RIAA is after you". If not, then think of all the schmoes deleting files. Who wins? The RIAA. Once again this is a tactic.
Kill the White Man
. . . what effect this will have on Verizon and who uses it, if any. That's something worth following - if Verizon does indeed suffer loss of customers, etc. that may be a powerful club to motivate other companies NOT to give in to the RIAA.
.
That is of course, if enough people care to boycott/protest/avoid Verizon . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
So what's the RIAA going to do with hundreds of thousands, and if other ISPs follow - tens of millions, of seperate teenagers downloading music? Go after each and every one of them? Try it. Just. Try. It.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
That is, in my opinion, the largest issue here. I do not have an issue with the RIAA subpoenaing ISP's for customers they believe to be infringing as long as they have to go through the court process and show their hand to a Judge in order to get the subpoena. As long as due process is followed, then it should be OK.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
File Sharing Hurts mega corporations, not musicians. The five major labels (Sony, Universal, BMG, Warner Bros, EMI) would like us to believe that file sharing steals from musicians. Wrong! It's actually the major labels who steal from the musicians! What you need to know about Major Label recording contracts: 1.Typical royalties paid to the artist come out to about 10Â per album sold. 2.The artist loses ALL COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP to his/her music. 3.All recording, production, mastering, and music video production costs COME OUT OF THE ARTIST'S royalties. 4.The label has total control over what the music is used for. The label is free to license anything they own to whoever they want. (Think about it next time you hear that classic song on an S.U.V. commercial) What you need to know about Clear Channel: 1. Owns the majority of radio stations in the U.S. (over 1500). 2. Receives huge payments from the 5 major labels to play major label owned music. 3. Has direct ties to the Bush administration and actively censors artists who do not support their rightwing politics. (I.e. Clear Channel has stopped playing the Dixie Chicks) Why would an artist sign to a major label? 1. Without the major label's connection to Clear Channel the artist has NO CHANCE OF EVER BEING PLAYED ON THE RADIO. 2. Without the major label's connection to MTV the artist has little chance of ever getting a video played. 3. Often the artist is wooed to the label by a large advance (sometimes in the millions of dollars), but the artist has to pay this money back to the label. File sharing Facts: 1. File sharing gives equal exposure to ALL musicians regardless of corporate sponsorship. 2. CD sales rose steadily until AFTER Napster was taken offline (check SoundScan numbers)â"CD sales only began to drop once the labels began calling the majority of their customers thieves. 3. The major labels began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearingsâ"EVEN THOUGH CD SALES WERE RISING. 4. Independent artists are currently SELLING BETTER THEN EVER BEFORE. Why the major labels are so scared of file sharing? Because the labels know that the only thing they can offer new artists is the chance to be heard on Clear Channel and seen on MTV. File sharing allows any artist to be heard by potentially millions of people, this has the corporate labels terrified. They are willing to go to any lengths to stop us from hearing independent artists. Recently the RIAA has sued a Michigan Tech student for sharing music with other students. The total amount in damages the RIAA sought from this single student was a whooping 97 billion dollars! (the case was eventually settled out of court) Every time you buy a CD you are supporting a system that exploits musicians and STEALS their intellectual property. Stop funding the persecution of fellow students! Stop giving money to huge corporations who take 99% of the money that rightly belongs to the musician! If you want to support musicians, consider downloading or copying their album and mailing them 5 dollars (that's fifty times what they would make if you paid 18$ for it!).
This is also known as guilty until proven innocent, for those of us that may show up as a false-positive on the illegal P2P scale.
Even more interesting, as mentioned in the News.com article, is a related story from yesterday morning that I missed. It seems the Republicans are getting it right... or at least are trying to. Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is seeking to regulate how digital rights management (DRM) is incorporated into consumer products. Also, the proposed bill would require that a copyright holder gets permission from a judge before receiving the name of any alleged illegal P2P user.
Of course, DRM goes against everything I believe in, but any kind of regulation of how this technology is deployed is a step in the right direction. Allowing the marketplace to intelligently decide what amount (if any) of copy protection is reasonable is a Good Thing.
you go on with your bad self.
;-)
;-)
go ahead and take me down.
what about the other 10,000,000 out there like me growing every day?
by our sheer numbers we redefine what is called right and wrong. you steal a car. it is made of atoms. you don't steal a computer file. it is made of electronic bits. you COPY it and you copy it effortlessly, 1,000,000 times. morality, redefined? or merely a new morality for a new mode of human existence? do you see now how the old rules must change for the new playing field?
welcome to the age of the internet bub. music existed long before the riaa, long before edison's vinyl recording.
so you go on with your bad self.
you cannot possibly own human creativity and electronic bits that are reproduced effortlessly.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
According to this report, the names HAVE actually been turned over today as Verizon Turns Over Names in Piracy Case
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
Of course, we all know that the major record labels aren't sweating about a few kids downloading some free music instead of paying for the pricefixed CD. They are really scared to death of artists realizing that they no longer need the services of the majors to earn a living. They see the impending end of their mass-distribution monopoly.
For music, the Internet is all about ease-of-mass-distribution! Every day, more people are overcoming the techsavvy hurdle. As more people become comfortable with the rip/mix/burn mantra, they won't think twice about forking $5 at an artist's website for an non-crippled MP3 or FLAC download of a whole album. They will download the files with the understanding that they can listen wherever, however and whenever. They can listen on their MP3 player of choice, or burn it to CD... the point is, the power is back in the hands of the artist and consumer.... but leaves old MCA to die a slow death. And they'll fight it to the very end, as their very existance depends on pushing digital rights management (DRM). Most artists don't want DRM, but the record labels are telling them they need it to hedge filesharing. Microsoft is pushing DRM because it will drum up good buisness for DRM tools.
Here's an analog to show you that this is a dangerous idea...
If you take 5 lbs of flour or powdered sugar, and put it in clear ziplocks and tape it up to look like cocaine, and you get pulled over and searched, and the cop finds it... guess what, you're STILL going to jail even though the substance you are carrying isn't itself illegal.
Just one example, in Arizona, State Law 13-3453 states that "It is unlawful for a person to manufacture, distribute or possess with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance." The reason being that such activities mimic the actual felony and therefore consume the time and resources of law enforcement engaged in the investigation of a crime. In AZ it's a class 6 felony, but it may vary from state to state, and could probably be considered felony obstruction of justice by some overzealous district attorneys.
The same legal theory can probably be applied to the manufacture and distribution of other "contraband," such as "illicit" digital "substances." If you make a fake with the intent of diverting or otherwise spoofing law enforcement, they are going to be very pissed, and will not by any means think what you are doing is cute or funny.
"...This could be a big blow to the file-swapping community, even if you're swapping legit."
Isn't that like saying "this could be a big blow to the pornography-subscribing community, even if you're just reading the articles?"
(And yes, the pun was intended.)
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
stock fraud
hooking up cable TV without paying
phone phreaking
identity theft
software piracy
etc., etc., etc.
It's unlikely that you're going to get caught or punished for "sharing", but don't kid yourself about what you're doing...
1. Be contacted by Verizon that your name is one of them being given out.
2. Go buy the CD's (used if possible, if new then don't open them) for all the music you have shared.
Sure you'll probably be in debt, but you won't be in jail/fined. After the trial, sell/return CDs.