Slashdot Mirror
SBC Fights RIAA Over DMCA Subpoenas
NaDrew writes "SFGate.com is running an AP article about Pac Bell's Internet arm suing music industry over file-sharer IDs. 'The suit also called to question some sections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the federal law the RIAA contends supports its latest legal actions. A spokesman for SBC said the RIAA's use of the DMCA in its legal quest for online song-sharers butts up against the privacy rights of SBC's customers.
"The action taken by SBC Internet Services is intended to protect the privacy of our customers," said SBC spokesman Larry Meyer.'" So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving.
I am totally against the DMCA, but how much of a chance do you think SBC has of winning? It looks like they are basically saying that by following the DMCA they will be breaking a contractual agreement with their costumers, but this will not hold up in court (or will it?) I suppose the arguement that the RIAA did not follow procedure could work, but one would assume that would just lead to the RIAA re-filing using proper procedure. In any case, it is nice that some people are still fighting this and not just bending over for the RIAA like some companies (comcast).
Visualize the world of wine
"Pacific Bell Internet Services jumped into the contentious music-downloading fray late Wednesday, filing a lawsuit against the recording industry and questioning the constitutionality of the industry's effort to track down online music sharers." (emphasis mine)
:-)
Joyce's Law: As a US lawsuit goes on longer, the probability of its constitutionality being challenged approaches one.
Bash script for FP whores
In what way does your internet connection link you to the data that travels over your connection?
How many people share connections with other people in a household? How can the riaa sue you for something your 12 year old daughter did? or your wife?
Just my 2 cents.
today is spelling optional day.
I know the RIAA is playing this close to the vest so they won't tip their hand, but it would be nice to have a hint that "smaller (and dial-up) is better."
Anyone else worried about misenterpreting these standsups from Verizon and SBC as being pro-filesharing? Though the article talks about them trying to protect their users, the overall picture seems to be painted as evil RIAA vs. good ISPs, which is really not the whole picture.
Why exactly are the ISPs so concerned with the user privacy? As an end user I'm certainly concerned with it, but you'd think that ISPs wouldn't really care that much. Fighting the RIAA will cost them money, just to protect privacy? What have they to gain from that?
(emphasis mine, added.)
Right. More like, "We are disappointed that Pac Bell has a spine, and didn't roll over as asked."
Why is it that when a (smaller) corporation decides to stand up for their customers' rights against a (larger) corporation, it's always spun as being unlawful?
It's time the DMCA was given a hard look at by the people who have a clue in the legal community, and who have the power to affect change.
That's wishful thinking perhaps.
user@host$ diff
What on earth does the above story, which was copied from another article, have to do with PacBell internet fighting the RIAA for their customers privacy?
Whether they win or not, the thing to remember is that they (Telco ISP's), at least have the resources to throw around to tie it up in the courts for sometime. Whether it's about compliance or not, the fact that SBC says they wish to protect their customers privacy is a nice "we're for the little guy" selling point.
I would personally like to see the first ISP who refuses to actually keep records of email addresses or IP numbers tied to user accounts, e.g. assign a "token" for the purposes of billing, but don't track IP's, etc, based on that token. Sell service plans that are all or nothing where everyone is throttled the same.
I can just imagine where the RIAA would be if they issued subpoenas for records that don't actually exist, or the ISP can prove they have no idea who these people are.
As long as you maintain a dynamic IP that changes each and every day, and they (ISP) don't maintain any route lists for billing purposes, how do they get you?
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
Friday, December 3, 1999
In its first major ruling on privacy and defamation in
cyberspace, the Court of Appeals on Thursday held that an
Internet Service Provider (ISP) is merely a conduit for
information, as opposed to a publisher, and consequently
is no more responsible than a telephone company for
defamatory materials transmitted over its lines.
The Court unanimously upheld an Appellate Division,
Second Department, decision that dismissed a defamation
lawsuit brought against Prodigy Services Co., by the
father of a Boy Scout whose identity was usurped by an
unknown imposter. The imposter posted vulgar messages in
the boy's name on an electronic bulletin board and e-
mailed abusive, threatening and sexually explicit
messages, also in the name of the boy, to the local
scoutmaster.
If they aren't responsible for defamation, why file sharing?
How is it that the RIAA can see what songs you're sharing. Since all the information is located on your PC then them coming inside it to see what you have or do not have in iteself tresspassing. Also since they're not law enforcement acting on a judge signed search warrant they they're doubly breaking the law.
Breaking the law to catch law breakers does not make it right.
Another thing of note.. The RIAA claims filesharing is hurting their cd sales..
Well for the % of sales they've lost they've also released many times less the amount of cd's 4 years ago when this hubbub all started out. They've created their own sales problems not the filesharers.. I have friends who download songs they hear on the radio.. then get a few more the radio would never play so they get a idea if the cd is worth buying.. then they usually go out and buy the CD.
1) Allow users to use p2p on your net.
2) Charge users for using the net.
4) More users want to access p2p stuff, pay for network
3) PROFIT !!!
4) RIAA sues users
5) Users stop using net
6) NO PROFIT!!!
7) ISPs oppose RIAA
8) RIAA stops suing users.
9) Users safely use p2p again
10) PROFIT AGAIN!!!
Yes, Long, but without the tricky "???" part.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
ISPs are afraid of losing customers. It's easier to delay the RIAA, pay some lawer fees and look like the good guys trying to protect their subscriber's anonymity than the guys who blow the whistle immediately.
...
Somehow though, I suspect ISPs would rather disclose the names of the P2P users the minute they get subpoenaed, and not be hassled by the RIAA, if they could get away with it
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Chill Luigi,
You can always move to Belgium, the downloading paradise.
Over here it's called IFPI, BSA and AGALEV.
The horror.
No karma whoring there, it was posted as AC.
Clearly, Jody needs to contact the DOJ's copyright lawyers.
They said they actually prosecute large companies, give them a chance. Looks like an open & shut case.
Can they sue you for something your wife did...no, your children... YES. Your wife is over 18, one would HOPE, so she is legally responsible for her own actions. However, if you have children under 18 then you, being their legal guardian are responsible for their actions. It's your job as a PARENT to make sure they do what is right and not break any laws. They cannot be prosecuted in many cases until they turn 18, but you can and will be for their actions.
im glad there are at least afew companys out there who aren't the RIAA's prison bitch someone beating the RIAA in court is the only way to stop this tide of madness sweeping the nation
in other news the RIAA has anounced a new step in its fight against file trading "we can't let this violation of our copyright continue and so are pressuring the goverment to alow copyright violations to be punisable by soddamy" stated a slightly excited RIAA spokes person thought the bill has receaved inital approval there are still certain issues to be decided such as how much it will cost to have the parts of the constiution forbiding brutal sexual abuse changed and wether the defentants will be entitled to lubrication the RIAA expects to have these issues ironed out once payoffs to large goverment angencys have been negotiated
Roses are Red Violates are Blue im not very good a poetry but i have many other redeming qualitys
GNAA PR department.
Great! Someone gets it!!!
The supreme court has allready ruled that there are broad rights to privacy in your own home. Int the last case I believe it was found that those rights applied even when someone might intrude through casual means.
Now the question becomes will they hold that copyright holders have, the ability to gain the equivalent of search warrants without the usual certification by a judge that there is cause ? Heres to hoping that the supremes hold true
Damn I hate the way the RIAA works. If they want to increase CD sales revenues, stop the pirate witch-hunt and use the money instead to:
1)Charge less per album
-> more people prepared to buy albums to see if they like it
2)Pay the artists more
-> more artists -> more choice -> better music
NO Problem. I won't get it from BuyMusic. I will just get it off KaZaA.
You're right, those two quotes do have something very important in common: you made them both up.
So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving.
:-)
No no no, you've got it all wrong--*surely* these giant corporations are doing this out of a deep desire to help their customers.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I hope the FBI doesn't investigate SBC and get the IRS involved who finds out that the AWOL CEO needs to be investigated by the DEA for wierd connections with the NRA ....need I go on.
if you don't feel better tomorrow, we'll just cut your legs off about here. - Theodoric of York
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but on the list of the songs which *might* get you into some trouble, there is one particular artist listed which I find... ironic.
None other than: Dave Matthews Band
Promoted by Napster, allowed to be freely downloaded (with permission) by Napster users and now is suing the people who made it what it is today. Hows that for a thank you?
yeah, and when there is a problem (i.e. cable modem uncapping, IP theft, abuse, etc) it will be so easy to find these offenders.
If someone breaks my car window, I can't subpoena everyone who owned a camera in the area to show me all the photos they took that day, then why on earth can I go to an ISP and say, check your logs for a user at this IP and give me their name/address.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
On Slashot?
Quite often.
They aren't concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas they've been receiving as they claim but more than likely they see the handwriting on the wall and they know that if P2P usage is diminished people will increasingly cancel their broadband (cable/DSL) accounts and hence directly affect the bottom line big time....these actions by the RIAA could drastically retard the growth of broadband
..i just read that charter communications is fighting them too...
Maybe, after examining the Verizon lawsuit, they found a loophole?
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
So does this mean if I admit in an Anonymous Coward post on Slashdot that I have made copyrighted files available on P2P networks (which I have seen other Slashdot posters do), then my ISP must give my account info for the IP Address associated with my post to the RIAA upon demand?
And think before you respond with "No, because they have no evidence" because they have no evidence now (just a P2P shared filename, which may or may not be a music file).
So sell cable uncapped, at one rate. No one sues the phone company when crimes are committed over their network. As long as purchasers understand that they may get lower speeds because of all the users uncapping, its all good.
...thats just way too many acronyms in a title, this early in the morning....
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Whether or not that citizen is violating some other law designed to protect your privacy (trespassing, breaking-and-entering, etc.) is another matter entirely...
What they are worried about is revenue. File sharing is one of the biggest reasons for having a broadband connection and paying $49.99 a month for it.
Okay... I'll bite... :-)
When have you known a consumer ISP be all that proactive and responsive to many of these issues? Perhaps they go after the uncappers as that affects their bottom line, but you can't tell me that with either proper configuration of routers, etc., that they can't prevent most of this crap further upstream - and STILL protect privacy.
They don't yet because it isn't FISCALLY viable to do so. Trust me - if there was a compelling business model, some major ISP would do just that.
Unfortunately, it might run right smack into the face of the latest anti-terrorist laws, since the ISP wouldn't be able to identify anyone, and this situation would piss off Mr. Jackboot Govthug to no end.
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
How about for gaming? And it is very nice for plain surfing, too. My college doesn't allow p2p, but I still find the connection speed useful for browsing.
Maybe I should have implied I was kidding.
...
/.
Or
I was j/k about the o/t posting here on
Can't we just lock them all in a big cage, toss in a lot of explosives and high-powered weaponry, and go far away for a while? Or maybe stay close enough to watch?
As reported by the SFG, the DMCA is not AOK with the SBC, and they're taking on the RIAA ASAP. AFAIK, this is not a LOL matter, but be warned, IANAL
TTYL
-- james
No one is saying the ISP's are RESPONSIBLE for filesharing. The ISP's are involved because the RIAA is sending them subpoena's for the identities of people using their networks. That is completely different!
The concept of the RIAA is brilliant. Alot of people dislike them for their heavy handed litigation, but they have little fear of customer backlash since they actually don't sell anything to anyone.
The way to approach this problem would be to publicly embarrass the labels that fund them.If, for example, RCA Records were to be pointed out in the media for being a member of a lobbying group that has made a concerted effort to behave like legal vigilantes, restrict technology irregardless of it's use, and act like all around asshats, then I bet their support for the RIAA would drop quickly.
A concerted effort needs to be made to tie the labels publicly to the RIAA's actions. Until that happens, the RIAA will continue to try to do as much damage as they can to piracy, irregardless of the collateral damage to the Internet, technology, and the constitution."Powers. I have them."
It is actually not that uncommon especially in a technical field. Working with avionics there are too many acronyms to learn. I found the following sentence in 15 seconds from a book on my desk:
;-)
When a VOR or LOC frequency is selected on the VHF navigation control panel, the frequency of the associated DME station (if there is one) is simultaneously selected.
I guess if I kept looking I could find a sentence with 3 acronyms but I am sure you get the point with this one
AC
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In another thread, I read a comment that they might be cutting AOL users some slack, since they are customers of one of the large members of the RIAA.
If this is the case, then I think this point should be addressed as well, as it could be seen as a way of abusing the legal system to harass your competitor's customers.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
I dont give a damn WHY theyre doing it, im just glad that someone has the stones to stand against what is becoming the next Evil Empire (tm). I mean, honestly, since SCO and the RIAA have jumped in the mix, I just dont have time to bash Microsoft anymore :(
You can now get a top 100 non-RIAA list from the RIAA Radar site.
in its legal quest for online song-sharers butts
Sounds accurate to me...
i'm a strong supporter of the free music community, and being a musician, and playing in a rock band, i'm totally against everything that the RIAA stands for to begin with.. its ridiculous to file lawsuits against teenagers for having downloaded music first of all.. There needs to be a GNU, but for Music.. Becuz just like the software industry, the source needs to be free! Open Music! bands make their money from playing huge shows, and selling merchandise like tshirts and stuff.. having their music heard worldwide, and for free, is something thats priceless.. i'd rather have billions of people hear my music, than only a couple that have the money, and the motivation, to go to the cd store to purchase it.. not saying that buying records isn't cool.. because it is.. and people should buy records to support cd stores, not a huge industry whose primary concern is capital and not passion...
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
AOL Time Warner, Sony, etc etc have far far more lobby groups, and own far more politicians.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Unfortunately, while I also agree the DMCA is evil and should never have been enacted there is little chance a Bell will stop it.
while they are MUCH larger then verizon, they are also despised by the government ( remember the breakup? ) and don't have the lobbying power any more to counter act this anti-citizen/pro-government thing.
But more power to them... I wish them luck, and support their cause via my monthly phone bill.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This story has little to do with BuyMusic.com screwing over the bands and more to do with the record companies owning the band. The recording industry has a history of shafting their customers. The culprit here is 'The Orchard'. There's a whole show dedicated to how recording artists are screwed over by the recording industry... it's called 'Behind the Music'.
Oh yeah... the BuyMusic.com commercials are blatently copying the Apple itune commercials, but with less charismatic people listening to the songs.
If SBC was so concerned about privacy, they wouldn't have you install so much adware and spyware when you order DSL service from them.
Feh, you wouldn't believe all the crap that gets installed, and with no option for not installing it.
And on top of that, they implicitly encourage people to directly connect their PCs to the internet, without any firewall or firewall software. So I guess they're not concerned when some skript kiddie installs a keylogger on your PC, and transfers money out of your bank account.
But I remember the reason I got broadband was for the free pr0n, not the free music.
But then that was ISDN in 1996.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I'd rather see an ISP that actively protects its users' privacy.
RIAA: All your IP are belong to us!
VigilanteISP: Say hello to my little friend.
[gunfire and explosions]
RIAA: (This line intentionally left blank to represent the total mortality rate imparted upon the RIAA's Legion of Undea^H^H^H^H^HLawyers)
Just like if they use your car and run over someone, guess who is financially liable.. Its not them..
This is a civil issue, not criminal ( yet ) so yes, dear parent YOU are the one that coughs up the cash. And its your account in question as well..
If it was THEIR internet bill perhaps.. but if they are under 18, they cant have one anyway so we are back to the same thing.. you get hit with it....
And if its your wife.. well.. its sort of hard to sue 1/2 a marriage.. Even if its done, you both in reality are paying the price, just not on paper.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This seems more equivalent to wire tapping. If someone is breaking the law over phone lines, the phone company isn't responsible -- but they still have to help investigators, and so, it seems, do ISPs.
:-)
Note that I didn't come down, in this particular post, on whether file sharing is actually illegal, whether it should be, or whether the RIAA should have the same powers that criminal investigators do.
Ok, so say you get served with a subpeona. The RIAA [read evil money hungry bunch of monkeys] supposedly has records that you have infringed upon copyrighted music. When you get to court you make sure you bring a laptop...when they say, [in nasalated evil lawyer tone] "Mr. Doe, we have evidence that your hard drive on DATE contained the following copyrighted songs, LIST." You reply by asking them if they have proof that the files were legimitate MP3s, OGGs or whatever. Did they actually listen to the "songs", do they have a copy of said songs showing with out a doubt that it came from your computer, with them right then and there? Then, you take your laptop and show the judge how easy it is to rename a 4-8MB file artist-song.mp3 Tada! Now you have what looks like a song, but it's really not. Now the only trouble with this approach is if the RIAA [read evil money hungry bunch of monkeys] actually has proof that they were real music files and that they came from your computer, etc...
Use layer 2 addressing to the terminating device. In our case this is a radio that we supply. In the case of cable/dsl, it's a router that often they provide, but you can use your own.
:P
I've yet to see the RIAA or anyone else hunt people down by mac address.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Now, I'm sure that SBC is doing this only after consulting with their accountants and realizing that doing this would either make or save them money. Either via marketing incentives or via lawsuits costing less then compliance. Otherwise they would NOT be doing this.
With that said. I use SBC Broadband. I use a Mac, and I use Acquisition for all of my download needs. My shared folder? One with about 150 html help files, nothing more. Is this a nice thing to do to other sharers? Not really, but I download all DAY, and yet will only show these benign html files as being shared. You see, Acquisition allows me to designate a different folder for my dowloads and a differfent folder for sharing.
Wouldn't this make me "safe"? If someone browses my files, they only see "help1.htm, help2.htm..." as that's all that's in my share folder. I have YET to have one upload (go figure).
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
By definition P2P sharing is like having an "open house" sign on your house.
Since you are allowing other people anonymously to come in to browse and download, the argument that they broke any law to look at your files is silly.
Now, if you had restricted access... ( like a sign in your yard 'party, invited guests only' ) then we can talk about breaking and entering without a warrant.. ( though there are some issues of "illegal activity in public view" that might come into play..)
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You'd think this would be happy news, something that should be noted and considered in a thankful tone in the write-up. But as always, Michael, you show yourself to be a thankless and simplistic fool. To turn your nose up at SBC for operating in congruence with public interest, no matter what their motivation in the matter, is just sending the message that "no matter what you do we'll resent you, you evil company!". You are basically putting them into a position of 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' with your editorial powers. such a shame.
Yeah, and one week later, every single script kiddie in the world has an account into that ISP.
If nothing gets actually logged, the thing becomes an anarchy. Don't get me wrong, I'd also love an ISP with such a behaviour, but "no way to trace you back" also means "w3lc0m3 70 p4r4d1s3, k1dd13z" and THAT surely is not the kind of publicity an ISP is wishing for.
I'm sure it has already been said, but
"So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving."
Actually, they are worried about going out of business. I'm not afraid to admit that I download stuff like a madman, and that's the only reason I have my high speed connection. I don't game online, and there's little else that would justify me spending much more money on my high speed connection. I'm sure I'm not alone in this boat, and the ISPs know it. They have to fight this, or they lose valuable subscribers.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I think this ongoing conflict between the RIAA, advocating the protection of copyrights, and businesses and individuals who oppose the RIAA's actions is interesting, but not because Kazaa and free file-swapping should reign supreme and continue unhindered. The real issue, IMHO, is about the individual's right to privacy and how that is balanced by another's right to enjoy gains from their work (copyrights). Despite the fact that the RIAA acts as a proxy for individual artists' copyrights (as a copyright is really designed to protect an individual and not a corporation), it comes from a defensible basic position. Individuals should not be allowed to enjoy someone else's work without compensating the creator.
However, individuals and corporations who are coming from the opposing position (e.g., SBC), are best served by arguing, not that file sharing should persist unfettered, but that individuals have the right to interact with others, whether by direct connection, email, postal mail, private conversations, etc. with privacy. Only legal authorities should have the right to invade that privacy and this should only be done after legally obtaining a warrant from a judge.
Though I am not a attorney, this position in favor of privacy seems highly defensible because to invade privacy just because it might involve copyright infringement (an individual could be downloading a track for which they own the CD --yes it happens, albeit infrequently) is a far more grevious offense.
So, what is to stop RIAA types of groups from getting lists of customers, and then selling those lists?
Like telecom 'Slamming', this can be used as a marketing weapon, for sending spam and other business practices...
ISPs get the short end of the stick here,
because not only do they have to give away their own customers, they have to pay the costs of loosing their own revenue streams!
Yah... I'm sure the AC needs karma real bad.
This is still something that has not been explained to me without it coming down to 'i like to steal music because it's easy and free' not 'i like to preview my music before I run out and buy the CD'
p2p in itself is an awesome technology. BitTorrent is one of my favorites, it solves that problem of things like Fileplanet that make yous sit through 70 ads for 30 min while you wait to download the latest 50MB patch to fix a game you like that wasn't released finished, but half finished because the hype machine kept it going for 2 years before it was ready (1.5 before it was released)
but Kazaa, Napster, Grokster, and any other method of distributing music that was taken from a CD that was distributed as a copyrighted material is just as bad as the guys that scan in the playboy centerfolds and post them to usenet. It's theft of property/right to make money.
Just because we think RIAA is screwing the artists, and RIAA is keeping CD prices artifically high, or whatever justification of the week is tossed out, you're still stealing the music.
It's not like Napster/Kazaa negotiated contracts with the artists that allowed you the user to download music seperate and outside the distribution structure. Its not like the artists are fighting RIAA by not signing contracts for music, heck they're jumping at the chance for a record deal with 'the industry' and are happy they get the $0.08 per CD or whatever measly amount it is.
When you download a song off of kazaa or whatever the p2p du jour is, you're stealing. There isn't a justification for this other than some made up BS. You aren't 'fighting the man' because 'the man' is someone that is out to make a buck. they're not 'trampling your rights' in an attempt to enforce their valid and legal copyrights.
If half the energy was put into going after our lawmakers to get things like Copyright lenghts, patents, and all the things that have been legally approved by our legally elected representatives and making them change this, we'd get something done.
Instead we're going to make a bunch of lawyers rich, a bunch of parents whos 12 year old kids are downloading and hosting millions of songs turn off the internet because it corrupted poor johnn and jane, and we're going to get it so that anything outside of port 80 requests to certified websites will be reported as piracy activity and they'll use the PATRIOT act to hunt us down.
73 iTunes Music Store songs purchased and counting.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I have to wonder if any of the lawsuits would actually hold up in court. It seems like there would just be too many ways to show that while a particular IP could have been assigned to one of your computers at a particular time, it could also have been someone elses. Someone could have been using your wireless access point without your knowledge, or you let someone else use your computer, or you didn't configure your filesharing software correctly and someone uploaded those files to your system without your knowledge. I mean, there are all sorts of technology related reasons that could explain away their claim.
What about chain of evidence issues? Who has access to the records/logs at the ISP? Have the records been tampered with? How accurate are the records?
Of course defense costs money, and the law has nothing to do with right and wrong, just who can be the most convincing...
Casca
I would personally like to see the first ISP who refuses to actually keep records of email addresses or IP numbers tied to user accounts, e.g. assign a "token" for the purposes of billing, but don't track IP's, etc, based on that token
I think thats a little unrealistic.
ISP's need to keep track of ip's to user accounts to curb abuse - How would it feel if an ISP said they couldn't delete a spammers account because they didn't know who it was.
What might be a better solution would be to have a group of ip's tagged with a group of people, which changes over time.
The RIAA would not be able to tell which of the group to finger, but sufficient reports (almost certainly to the ISP) of abuse should be enough to track down to a single user, in the different groups.
The above is probably fundamentally flawed...
However, the idea that ISP's won't keep track of who is using which IP would probably lead to worse situations - plus its unlikely to happen with any but the smallest of ISP's.
The answer isn't to delete useful information, but perhaps the answer is to ensure that customers privacy is respected unless they are being investigated by a government body for breaking the law
These media conglomerates are so paranoid about what illegal downloading will do to their bottom lines, they have a great incentive to kill what they perceive as the primary means of obtaining illegally downloaded material (high bandwidth). They are also denying themselves a revenue stream potentially worth billions because they cannot think beyond the next quarter.
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
I am totally against the DMCA, but how much of a chance do you think SBC has of winning?
Suppose they don't have any chance of winning. Which do you think is a better PR move -- simply rolling over, as some ISPs did, or dragging their heels in favor of their customers publically every step of the way?
If you like trading music and are about to get broadband, which company would *you* sign up with?
May we never see th
Never thought i would be rooting for a baby bell or IBM.
If filesharing is completely shutdown the need for higher bandwidth comes into question. I have known average users who say things like "$40/month for broadband isn't too bad b/c I can get free music."
Incidently, while P2P may produce losses for the music industry (seems pretty reasonable to assume so), I'm not entirely certain that as an absolute value, it's not causing people to spend more, if on other industries. It drove the broadband revolution -- a massive change in the telcos. It produced a huge boom in demand for storage -- Maxtor and WD enjoyed a massive surge in demand for hard drives. CD burners, which had seen only lackluster appeal (and high prices) before P2P sold like hotcakes. I remember walking into Office Depot and seeing fully half of the computer peripheral section being CDR-related.
Of course, while people may be spending less per album going to the music industry, they're listening to a lot more -- the average P2P sharer has far more music than in the old days.
May we never see th
I'm sure there's a hundred holes in this but here goes:
Is there anyway that one could apply copy-protection/encryption to the network itself so that anyone who isn't part of the network would have to break the DCMA in order to find the files in the first place?
Then just create a restrictive license that keeps businesses and their agents (like the RIAA) off of the network.
is that SBC is actually making a stance in favor of their customers. So many times it feels that SBC is our to get their customer but it is nice to see this approach from them at this time.
The best way to get all the ISPs playing like SBC is to switch provider - and write an e-mail to each (preferably to the highest placed contact you can find) saying that you're switching because you trust SBC to defend your privacy.
Very few customers communicate with companies - it therefore takes surprisingly few communications to start shifting opinion.
The good fight is seldom won through apathy
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
From the article...
"The suit also named two other companies, Mediasentry Inc. and IO Group Inc., as defendants... IO Group does business as Titan Media, a San Francisco-based purveyor of pornography. Titan served a subpoena on SBC's San Antonio offices, but later withdrew it when PBIS said it would challenge it."
Does anyone else know of any other documented instances of a pr0n copyright holder firing off a DMCA subpoena to an ISP?
Usually, we're all complaining about the 'bell heads' and their way of thinking about switched circuits, but sometimes 'phone think' is good. For decades there has been the idea that the phone company isn't to blame when criminals use the phone network to arrange or commit crimes. For a long time, ISPs have been trying to be placed in that type of legal position. I assume that part of the motivation for this suit is that SBC wants its ISP side to be treated like it's phone side.
I don't think PBIS will get anywhere with the privacy argument as they're putting it forward. They might get somewhere with the jurisdictional argument, but on privacy they're going to flop. People breaking the law have no right to have that illegal activity kept private.
PBIS would have better luck arguing that that provision of the DMCA violates the constitutional right to due process. The RIAA hasn't provided any proof beyond merely their word to any judicial authority that copyright infringement has in fact occurred, and PBIS could argue that the Constitution's due-process clause trumps the provision of the DMCA that allows this and that if the RIAA wants to force release of private information then they should be required to provide at least proof that the downloaded file in fact contained a song on which they hold copyright and a legal evidence chain showing that that file in fact came from the computer for which they are requesting the subscriber's private information. It would help also if PBIS could present a subpoena from the RIAA where the file they're claiming infringes provably doesn't infringe (eg. it contains an original work not owned by the RIAA which was shared either by the actual copyright owner or with his explicit authorization).
"As long as you maintain a dynamic IP that changes each and every day, and they (ISP) don't maintain any route lists for billing purposes, how do they get you?"
Flame me if i'm wrong, but if the actual time and IP address was given to the ISP, regardless of whether the addresses was dynamic or not, surely they would be able to trace the account from something like greping radius logs by rough time, date and IP address?
Will people start getting sued for using electricity to power their computers to swap files? How about for oxygen used by the people who run their computers, using electricity to connect to SBC to swap files? Where does it end?
Someone, please shake me from this wide-awake nightmare.
"Seein' as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the VC on the QT cause if it leaks in the VC we could end up an MIA and then we'd all be put on KP" - RW as A2C AC in GMV
The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
Actually, there's more to it than your reactionary opinion.
Before 9/11, and before anti-terrorism laws, law enforcement officials had the ability to track down an IP address to a specific user. There are all kinds of illegal actions that take place over the internet, including consumer fraud, kiddie porn, etc.
It's no different that the phone company having data on when you made calls and who you were talking to.
You may not like the DMCA, but referring to law enforcement officials as "Mr. Jackboot Govthug" is asinine. Attack the law, not the law enforcer...and take a chill pill.
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
You have to install spyware and adware?
IIRC, the only thing you need to install is a small front-end utility that provides support PPPoE. And even that isn't necessary if your router provides it natively.
I dont think anyone has proven that fileswapping has a negative effect on the sale of CD's. But I know damn well that if all ISP's have to sue on our behalf to keep us out of jail then our internet connection is going to start costing alot more.
So is the real objective to make internet users (all internet users not just those who swap mp3's) pay more for their internet access?
Perceptions is 9/10 of the business. Your "Home Page" should have some "Home Security" don't you think. I think most people who have internet access feel that that is their private space, an extension of their home. The marketing image is such. You don't see an ISP tauting, "come with us, you can have a cardboard box full of your personal information that people can rummage through like a flea market offering". No they sell secuity and privacy and warm fuzzy service.
The RIAA onslaught attacks that image and could change the way people view the internet and maybe make that business dry up. Take as an example the Airline industry and how a little change in perception (as opposed to actual risk) can almost being down the industry. Another example is whats happened to Halloween. People tend to be very risk adverse when it comes to things close to Home or personal security.
So it is in the best interests of the big ISP's to show that they are fighting for that image if not the reality. If they went down on the other side of the issue the image damage might not be repairable.
So we have two business models fighting for territory and existance.
Now me, I'll sit in the stands and root for the home team.
What would you call it? GNM? GNM's Not Music? The problem with that solution, is that most indie music I've heard *is* music, while the non-free stuff often isn't.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
I'm not afraid to admit that I download stuff like a madman, and that's the only reason I have my high speed connection.
I do to. But I do not violate copyright to do so.
I download Knoppix and Gentoo ISO images.
I rsync portage trees, download and compile source tarballs of hundreds of free(dom) programs quite often.
I use bittorrent (and occasionally gnutella) to download free movies (remember that Star Trek Fan Fiction Episode reported here on slashdot a few months ago?) and cool projects (machinima films, Creative Commons content, and so on).
I download a bunch of stuff, and I share a bunch of stuff, but every single Byte of it is legal and with the permission, nay, desire of the author.
Broadband and P2P are critical technologies for the dissemination of information in large quantities, which has vastly more legitimate uses than infringing ones, RIAA and MPAA rhetoric notwithstanding.
It may be that a group of infringers makes use of the technology, and perhaps even pushes its development some (as pr0n has been known to do with respect to web technology), but at the end of the day this stuff is critical infrastructure for people simply being able to move and access information effeciently and quickly, i.e. for people to simply get work done.
The fact that it makes the media cartels' business model obsolete is a delicious side effect, but it is ultimately a minor and insignificant one, much like the demise of Buggy whip manufacturers, compared to the benefits (much like the benefits of automobiles).
Not that this won't necessarilly stop a hopelessly corrupt and backward looking government (Washingtonians, of both the Democratic and Republican variety) from trying to pry the Genie back in the bottle as a way of paying back their Hollywood Butt Buddies (and wrecking untold financial and economic damage in the process)...
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I think your cow needs a vet, there. She looks a bit skewed.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
(i.e. cable modem uncapping, IP theft, abuse, etc)
Cable modem uncapping is a problem caused by lazy implementation. If new services were created by engineers rather than the marketing department it would have never been an issue. The problem can still be fixed retroactively by either uncapping everybody, or capping at the provider end like should have been done to begin with.
"IP theft" is what we're talking about here. Specifically copyright infringement (You can't "Steal" trademarks or patents using an internet connection any more than you can without one. In fact, you can't "steal" a trademark at all really. The term "IP theft" is a broken creation of legal PR departments. You should remove it from your vocabulary.). Telephone companies should not incur financial expense for the wrongdoing of individual customers using a service they provide that has far more non-infringing uses than infringing ones. Telcos should want to be unable to find these people because it will save them money.
Abuse is a whole other problem, and one that is still solveable, but not in a way that would punish the offenders.
So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
i think someone needs to start a community kind of like Mp3.com... where people can download music of all sorts, for free.. But it would be completely up to the artist if they wanted give away their music. and it would be the site maintainer's job to make these bands look appealing to the public. there's a whole world of music out there, yet most people are confined only to what they see on TV.. And that music is over commercialized and of course the record industry is going to sue people that are making their #1 money makers, start to loose cash flow. screw all that.. most music you see on tv sucks complete ass as it is.. you might as well take the time and motivation, to search for good bands that truly put their heart and soul into their music, and merely want people to LISTEN to it rather than worrying about how much money they are going off of the record. if you think otherwise, then this whole thing has turned into a Moral issue.. because the true artist is not out to make money.. Download, Distribute, Destroy is what most Anti-RIAA people say..
regardless if its stealing or not, you're supporting something that has no HEART if you agree with the actions of the RIAA.. and that alone describes what kind of person you are.. and those people that fit into this category always seem to be the same people that make this world a bad place in most capitalistic aspects.
but unfortunately we live in a society where money talks and bullshit walks..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
If only the RIAA did this back before the big Telcos got into the provider business - they could have squished this before it happened. Now big pocket companies are coming out swinging against them, and the RIAA is going down. Damn!
I'll give SBC the benefit of the doubt and encourage everyone else to do the same. They're doing the right thing in this case, so if you have any accusations against them, you had better present some solid evidence as well, or at least not just groundless claims based on... well, I don't even know what you are basing your claims on.
Clever signature text goes here.
Though sounding good in theory, this will never happen. I had my own computer hosting company for a while, and we kept METICULOUS records for legal reasons. I'll use a fake scenerio that doesn't involve P2P (cause it's been done to death) but can easily translate over:
Let's say I buy a large pipe off of a major trunk (let's say uunet). From that pipe, I sublet my bandwidth to various companies. 1 of those companies is a local ISP in East Bumblefsck, Iowa and they sell out lines to 50 customers. Now one of those customers decides to hack into the ReallyBigMissiles.gov. I am responsible for what happens on my lines unless I have legally binding contracts that transfer that responsibility onto my sub-renters. That's why they keep records. They have to not only prove it wasn't them, but have the logs to back it up.
It works the same way in the real world. If you lend a friend your car, he speeds, and you get a photo-radar ticket in the mail a week later, sucks to be you. Unless you can prove to the courts that your friend was driving, they're not gonna care. You are responsible for your property.
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
The DMCA has no penalties for making an unfounded accusation. As a copyright holder I can accuse anyone I want of pirating my wares. Here are some ways it can be abused.
1 ) I get into a flame war with some bastard and go batshit crazy. I get his IP. I send a letter to his provider accusing him of piracy and demand his contact information. In accordance with their obligations under the law, SBC complies and sends me his address. I then call John Ashcroft and give him the name and address of a known AlQuaida sympathiser. Mere moments later a Homeland security SWAT team servs a no-knock search warant on his ass and shoots him for threatening them with a plastic cup. SBC doesn't particularly care about this one.
2) I am a competitor to SBC. I get a list of the IP addresses served by SBC. I send the list if IP addrressed attached to SBC and attach a letter accusing the people on that list of pirating my wares. In accordance with their obligations under the law, SBC complies and sends me all of the contact information for it's customers. I add that contact information to my list of people to send my new Ultra Low Priced Broadband advertisement. SBC is concerned about this, but it's so brazen that they can stop it in court.
2) In a variation of scenario 2 I simply buy the contact info from third parties as they persue claims against SBD clients. I then sell the compiled list to mass marketers and deprive SBC of the ability to do so. I also sell the list to SBC competitors for direct marketing compaigns. SBC is concerned about this.
4) I and a billion other copyright holders innundate SBC with accusations that their customers are pirates and demand contact info. SBC has to open a whole new department of people to answer these accusations. They spend a fortune attempting to comply with their obligations under the law. SBC is really concerned about this.
Very well put comments. Thank you for posting them. A little more honesty like this around here would do this crowd some good.
I've posted before that I'm tired of all of the justifications that people use for piracy. They usually fall into one of two areas.....downloading this music is my right (because it's all about me)or, the record
companies are corrupt (the civil disobidience for fun and profit motive).
Let's get something straight here. NOBODY likes the record companies. Not the consumers. Not the Artists. Not the middlemen. But I don't like car dealers either, and you don't see me hotwiring cars off of their lot because I think they're in a corrupt business. The point is that THEIR corruption doesn't justify MY corrupt actions. Or as your mother undoubtedly told you, two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Want to change things? You do have rights. You do have options. Stop buying cd's. Completely. Zero revenue will get their attention quickly. That doesn't mean steal the music and not buy cd's to protest "the man", that means ignore their product completely.
"Oh...nevermind...that would actually require some measure of sacrifice on our parts. Well, fuck that. I don't care about it if I have to give something up myself. It is, after all, all about ME."
And you people complaing about the use of the word "steal".....that's what it is. When you take something that isn't yours, whether it's physical or bits of data over the internet, that's stealing, folks. Saying otherwise is just splitting hairs, the Slashdot equivilant of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
It may be legally called copyright infringment, but deep down, you KNOW what you're doing.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
I don't think that is the main reason. It is generally much cheaper to do an SQL query then hire a bunch of expensive lawyers.
I feel the primary reason SBC is putting up a fight is because they know that if RIAA succeeds in spreading fear of P2P apps, their broadband business will slow down or even die down. I personally feel that a lot of non-techie friends get broadband so that they can continue getting music and videos through the Internet. Why else would one spend 40+ US dollars if P2P isn't the reason? One can surf the web just as easily with 10 US dollars (over dialup). Yeah, a tab bit slower, but most sites still load up within 10-15 seconds on dialup. It's the time you save over big downloads like mp3, that makes it all worth it.
now supporting:
cmdrTaco for president '04
michael for oval office intern summer '05
How is this different from what Verizon is doing? Can courts throw out redundent lawsuits? If so, Pac Bell might lose before the case even gets started...
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
SBC doesn't give a damn about customer privacy or the cost of subpoena compliance. They are DESPARATE to sell DSL service and they know that a large segment of their customer base uses DSL for file sharing. If the RIAA successfully scares file sharers that = No file sharing = no need for DSL = no customers for SBC.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Excellent. No CDs and no stealing is the only way to change the business model. As long as there are a bunch of idiots that think they are "screwing the system" then the system will have every justification for pursuing consumers as criminals. There are ways to entertain oneself without RIAA member music. There are ways to entertain oneself without music at all.
:)
Music screws with the mind in ways that not everyone understands. We've all seen the blips of corporations experimenting with sound to manipulate emotion and desire. Look at Spears and drug commercials. There's not much difference. They are packaging a lifestyle or solution that doesn't exist or is expensive to pursue or a completely fictional existence as drug commercials are good at doing.
Basically, fuck all these people. I don't need their noise. I don't need their shows. I don't need their drugs. I don't need their system either. And I'm not going to give them a reason to fuck with me or call me a hypocritic.
This attitude comes from 15 years(I'm 27) of total and complete access to all things digital. Once you possess the ability to possess everything, you can create an honest opinion on the value of it. Maybe that's why this world is so insane. The creators decided that it was once good but now it sucks and left it at that.
You spoke about sacrifice but there isn't really any sacrifice. Just adjust your desires and find some legal, ethical and more meaningful stuff to entertain yourself.
Corrupt industries lose when people HONESTLY refuse to play to their stupid business models.
Laws are for people with no friends.
This court upheld the Sonny Bono Perpetual Copyright Act. BUT, that perpetual copyright coupled with the insane powers the DMCA grats a copyright holder may sway them...
Somebody hasn't been reading their court opinions very carefully: that ruling really has almost nothing to do with this case, and they do not consider it a perpetual copyright. All the opion said was that they were not willing to declare a longer, but still limited, copyright as going outside the constitutional meaning of a "limited duration" copyright. Besides, the Supreme Court's job is not to decide which laws they like or don't like: it's to decide whether laws are constitutional and being interpreted correctly. There's nothing in the constitution that says "corporations shouldn't be too powerful", so the issue of power is not going to sway them unless it's power applied in a way which violates constitutional rights or existing laws.
Since this has nothing to do with copyright duration, the verdict on copyright extension has absolutely no bearing on this case, which seems to be shaping up to be about privacy.
1. Sue RIAA over releasing subscribers details
2. Win
3. 60 million Americans sign up to receive their broadband from you, because they know they are 'safe' from the RIAA
4. Profit!!!
Someone set up us the subpoena!
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
I think that many of you are missing one important point, regardless of SBC, or Verizon winning, they are causing enough of a disruption to the RIAA that they will slow down, and it also wastes their money. The more money that they spend in court is less money they have to go after individuals.
If all universities (like in Boston) make it hard for the RIAA to get what they want, they will be a little less likely to go after them.
Unfortunately, that means people may go to some of the larger ISPs like SBC just because of this, and SBC will just gain more market share.
Also remember that SBC is a Texas based corp. They more-likely-than-not have greater political ties to the White House, above and beyond lobbying.
Although I'm not a big fan of SBC's near monopoly over the phone system in much of the country, I think that the RIAA's monopoly over the music industry is far worse.
Im glad
I smell a new marketing campaign. "Here at SBC, we value your right to privacy."
The first thing I thought was, "Why would the Southern Baptists Convention even be involved here?"
SBC has been unfairly targeted by government, ( thru legislation ) both local and federal, since the day after the breakup. Keep in mind the Bells were part of ATT, so the animosity would still carry over.
SBC was the largest of the 'pieces' and were disliked.
Still are.
And yes I realize it was 20 years ago, I disagreed with it then, and still do.
The government is more then a faceless machine, its a process.. hell bent at oppressing the citizen.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You cant enter into ANY contract at 15 in this country..
The ISP left themselves wide open by giving you an account. There was no contract for them to fall back on if a dispute arose.
Nor you either for that matter..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The writer of this has the relationship between SBC and Pacbell a bit messed up. SBC isn't the Internet branch of Pacbell. Pacbell is dead. SBC bought them up and took over their market. SBC does my phone and DSL now. They would do my T-1 if I wasn't a cheap bastard too.
Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
Maybe if I said something like this in my blink as you pass it Terms of Service in my Kazaa install:
By installing this software I affirm and swear that I am not a member of, in pay of, or associated with in any fashion the recording industry, the RIAA, or any media outlet....
I am aware that by chosing to use this software I am using encrypted data streams.
Then slap people mining the users with DMCA violations?
So the RIAA has a bunch of computer programs running, or perhaps pays contractors to run them. These programs sweep the Internet's popular P2P networks, scan files, and report the results. What prevents a lawyer with a computer and a chip on his shoulder from keeping a whole mess of juicy-looking but legal data on his machine, getting swamped by the automated little buggers... and then charging the contractor with a DOS attack?
(IAAL, but only have a vauge understanding of how a DOS works.)
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I believe that the upper most reason for the flurry of subpoenas was to find out what large ISPs would fight back. The RIAA already knew that they could sue once a user was identified. They also knew that the subpoenas would stall traffic to some degree. But the greatest challenge is the one for good press. ISPs fighting back keeps the issue from being one-sided and allows time for more people to ask more questions, eventually getting to the right one..ie... a business model that has failed the customer.
I'm impressed!....but...I'm easily impressed!
Instead of worrying about the RIAA, I have a better idea - worry about the massive Verizon/AT&T monopoly. All of you think that Verizon's new "Free long distance, free everything all for one simple fee" plan is great? Any of you notice the coincidence that AT&T offers the same plan? Any of you figure out that their competitors (since they have to pay Verizon for those services to resell to the general public) cannot offer similar rates? Are you figuring this all out yet? Anyone who says "So what? We get free local and long distance for the same price or less than we used to pay for just local" is also an idiot, or niave or just born recently. It used to be illegal for Verizon to charge amounts that prevented their competition from offering competitive plans... wonder if that ruling has been invalidated too... So, in case you havent figured it out, I'll spell it out for you. How long do you think that Verizon/AT&T will have competition when no one can compete any longer? When they succeed in wiping out all or most of their competition, do you think you'll keep those great, cheap rates? If so, then you're brain dead. Or perhaps you hadnt already noticed pay phones that were formerly GTE or Contel and only 15 cents are now 50 cents since there is no competition and Verizon owns them? Gee, 35 cents that Verizon used to charge went up to 50 on theirs and the ones they purchased as soon as they bought out or destroyed their competition in that market.
Sorry, but I am sick and tired of hearing all the RIAA crap when you should notice the real issues. (Then again once Verizon/AT&T own all of telecommunications - including the Internet, maybe you all will finally notice the real problems - that you all created due to your lack of diligence over what really matters). It's really simple folks. Do one of the following and fight the companies that are really the problem.
Verizon knows that thanks to the falsities of it's corporate structure, they can keep instituting the same suit via their various subsidiaries or "used to be part of Ma Bell, but we swear we really have no affiliation with them anymore" companies until they win and (a) overturn the DMCA or (b) set a precedent which will allow the company k
You underestimate how expensive such a service would be. Script kiddies have no money - at least, no money that isn't on stolen cardz.
Were I moderating today I would give karma.
Instead Today I give you thanks for such a great resource.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Ads that say, for example, "Dave Matthews and Christina Aguilera help fund the RIAA" because they're affiliated with RCA might get a lot more people thinking.
When people go to a store, they don't usually look to see if the album on display is made by RCA (or any other specific company), and even if they did, complex publishing/distribution deals may make it hard to tell from the outside cover exactly where the money goes. But they do look to see who the artist is, so making a "no-hit list" of artists might work better.
Get off my launchpad!
- The Recording Industry deserves NO SYMPATHY!
- People in the business of selling a propritary transmission medium WANT YOU TO USE THEIR NETWORK!
Networks are for communication. If the RIAA wants to snoop; they snoop. If you want to swap; you swap. It's none of their business what you do, just as it's none of your business what they do. They have money and political influence; you probably don't.
Use caution when slaying a beast. Just because it's down doesn't mean it can't rear it's ugly head and take you out.
Use common sense; use crypto. Learn how to use it. Make it easy for others to use.
This guy is 100% correct, you CAN'T tap someone's phone without a warrant. More importantly, there is no legal precedent for wire taps in civil cases.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Could make a good argument against having a static IP.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
By repeating the RIAA party line on "stealing", you are helping make that future possible. My guess is that this is your real intent.
Putting a broadcast-quality music track onto a P2P network or Internet radio is giving it free publicity. Would an RIAA weenie or artist whine if a commercial radio station decided to put their track in heavy rotation without an "ADD" fee of $1000 per play?
The difference between this and the radio:
BTW, I metamodded your post down. It doesn't rate insightful. There is no insight in it. Unfortunately, /. doesn't have a "Propaganda" category yet.
Tech Public Policy stuff
So of course, because you want cable for your reasons, you assume that is the primary reason for everybody else.
And then you get mad at people who make generalizations based on their experience.
Holy cow, you must be a treasure to be around.
That's not the issue here. The issue being fought by SBC is that the RIAA currently has the power to force them to turn over the identity of users for a given IP address without a court mandate.
Right now the RIAA can send a list of IP's and times those IP's where logged to a ISP and force the ISP to reveal the contact information for the user who owned that IP at that particular point in time. They can do all of this without any intervention from the courts.
Everybody with a copyright can. Which means I could accuse you of taking my 3rd grade essay and sharing it, and get your contact information. And you'll never be able to prove that you *didn't* share it, it'll be more than reasonable doubt about whether you deleted it to avoid said copyright charges.
Right now, noone but the RIAA bothers to take the fight. But if this becomes accepted policy, a whole host of people will take advantage of this for various dubious reasons. And if they let RIAA do it, they can't very well refuse others without lining themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Check it out. Sen. Coleman has asked the RIAA to give a description of its safeguards against targeting innocent people among other things.
Phoenix
Companies like SBC and Verizon had no idea they'd have to deal with this when the laws were past, just as a man who breaks his collarbone has no idea how much it's going to affect his walking till it happens. I know of someone had told me before it happened that when I got my collarbone broken it would hurt a lot to walk till i had a brace thingie on it, I would have thought they were crazy. Same goes for the DMCA. Why would it be a problem for the telecoms? Until it happens, that is.
Now on the other hand, when I did break my collarbone, I recall getting up off the ground and saying something to the extent of "Holy fuck this hurts!" every time I took a step. I'm sure something similar is what the telecoms see when they are served a thick stack of papers by the RIAA, only it's going to hurt in the pocketbook, not the shoulder. It's not just the objective of the law, but the position of the damage.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I'm not arguing or gauging the metrics and value of being able to identify people. What I'm saying is a simple fact. It WOULD fly in the face of Law Enforcement to have the ability to travel through the internet and not be tracked.
:-)
Why is "Mr. Jackboot Govthug" asinine? You must not ride motorcycles and get pulled over and harassed for doing nothing wrong other than riding a motorcycle. Since that is my primary exposure to law enforcers, that's the face I choose to paint on that picture. Reactionary? Agreed. However, we all tend to react to our environmental conditioning.
I'll have to say "no thanks" to the chill pill... I don't do drugs - but thank you for your concern!
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
...to the telecommunications industry.
Even with the current mess today, market capitalization and revenue is magnitudes better than it was 20 years ago with one monolithic phone company.
And yes I realize it was 20 years ago, I disagreed with it then, and still do.
Go to China if you want government institutionalized industry.
The rest of us will stick with deregulated industries driven by competition and market forces.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
uhmm If your OS supports PPPoE you dont have to install squat. The only thing you get on the Install CD is the PPPoE client if your OS doesnt support it.
Other CDs have the branded browser and some utils, but no spyware.
dvnull
It's not that the Baby Bells don't want to give away their user information, it's that they don't want to give away their user information for free. If the RIAA approached them with some cash instead of a subpoena, there wouldn't be anything worth talking about.
As to whether or not personal information should be turned over, I think the decision should be based largely on the nature of the complaint. If it is a capital crime (murder, ...) then yeah. Rape, child sex, yeah. A barking dog, no. The RIAA complaints are a lot closer to a barking dog than a capital crime. The only way to sort this out is in front of a judge, and the DMCA cut them out.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Could an ISP simply delete any information that would associate an IP address with a customer?
Naturally, that would be implausible for customers who use static IPs. But could it be a usable technique for protecting the privacy of customers with temporary IPs?
We now have higher prices, poorer service and more hassles..
This was one experiment of the government that FAILED miserably. They should have left things be in this case. Not all monopolies are bad. Many are, but not *all*.
End of story. Don't bother commenting more as you are totally incorrect.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Start sending subpoenas, the linux community appreciates.
We now have higher prices, poorer service and more hassles..
I'm paying $50 a month for unlimited long distance for the entire US and Canada plus local service with Verizon. I can't think of ANY region where they actually pay more for long distance.
Wait a minute, I just figured it out. You're a troll. I bit. I'll have to accept I like to bite.
End of story. Don't bother commenting more as you are totally incorrect.
That seals it. You're either a troll or a total dolt who's too chicken shit to back up his assertions.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Unless you reply otherwise, I'll assume your answer is an emphatic yes.
Alternatively, the correct analogy you should be using is when, in the distant future, Star Trek-style replicators are used to duplicate cars on lots.
P.S. You'd say I "stole" parts of your message, yes?
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
The telephone, automobile and petroleum industries of America are the experts when it comes down to political wrangling. I don't think SBC would have done this if they didn't have a few aces up their sleeve. And even though Hillary and the RIAA have the Dems in their pocket, Ed and the SBC boys gots the Republicans in theirs.
Maybe the number of people who will listen to such crappy music won't be too high, even if they only have to pay a very small amount of money. If the things come free people might spend some time hunting if they are bored, but paying money (even as low as $.01) is enough hassle in itself to discourage such hunting.
I'm for the bells, and against the breakup of ATT. End of discussion.
Regardless of you thinking im a troll, im not. Im just tired of discussing this when its going nowhere. Im biased, your biased... so its a waste of effort to continue. ( even off line )
Have a nice day. And good luck being heard out there. ( a verizon slam.. in case you couldnt figure it out )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Eeew! I _knew_ they had an ulterior motive! They're trolling for dates!
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
By J. Wipo Troll, Esq., $Revision: 1.16 $
[This article attempts to document a vile, ungodly practice that runs rampant through the homosexual geek and hacker community, a practice known as Taco-snotting, or simply snotting. Taco-snotting is something that few geeks dare talk about in free or open conversation, but it is nonetheless a widely-practiced and dangerous form of homosexuality. If you or anyone you know has ever engaged in Taco-snotting, please get professional help before it is too late. ed.]
Why do I keep receiving emails from an individual calling himself CmdrTaco?
You have been receiving unsolicited mailings from a certain Robert CmdrTaco Malda, owner of the popular technology website slashdot.org. Actually, its not a very popular site in the common sense of the word; the site is rife with pimply, antisocial geeks and hackers, zit-faced nerds, communists, dirty GNU hippies, and other societal rejects and outcasts. Its also home to one of the worlds largest suspected pdophile rings, the infamous Slashdot crew.
Whenever Mr. Malda gets bored (and who wouldnt, running a site like Slashdot all day), he roams through the user database, penis in hand, looking for people who might enjoy engaging in homosexual activities with him. How he determines this is anyones guess; but if you have a homosexual-sounding nickname, or a nick with a letter of the English alphabet in it, youre a potential candidate.
This time, he found you. Lucky you.
Mr. Malda seems to be speaking in some sort of code. Do you know what it means?
CmdrTacos code language is relatively easy to decipher. This pervert prefers to speak in thinly-veiled sexual innuendo (yes, thats right: he wants you) to evade the watchful eye of Slashdots parent corporation, VA Software. Mr. Maldas Commander is, of course, his penis: a small, withered little thing that lives in his pants and only comes out in the presence of other male geeks or at the beck and call of Maldas own lubed-up right hand. His Taco bells are the shriveled testicles that droop beneath his Commander, and his Taco sauce is his thin, runny semen. It should be more than obvious to you now what he means if he asked you to ring his Taco bells or taste his gourmet Taco sauce.
I would also guess CmdrTaco asked you to engage in a practice known as Taco-snotting and, if he was in a particularly depraved mood at the time, a circle-snot.
Good Lord. And, yes, he did. What is Taco-snotting?
Taco-snotting is the term used by Robert Malda to refer to the depraved act of fellating another man (homo- or heterosexual; CmdrTaco is rumoured to prefer raping unwilling victims), then blowing the semen out his nose and back onto the face and body of his victim. Naturally, a long, bubbly stream of milky-white semen is left on CmdrTacos face, dribbling out of his nose and down his cheek: hence the term, Taco-snotting.
And if thats not bad enough
A circle-snot is a Taco-snotting circle-jerk, another practice common among the Slashdot crew. CmdrTaco, CowboiKneel, and Homos get together and snot each other with their gooey, sticky cum spooging their jizz-snot all over each others faces and pasty, white bodies, until theyre covered head to toe with their own and each others man juice. This vile, ungodly ritual can go on for hours. For the homosexual penetration that follows this lengthy foreplay, Roblowme is usually there to provide plenty of anal lubricant; he owns a limousine service and has ample supplies of motor oil and axle grease ready to go.
To complete this perverted orgy, fellow faggots Michael, Timothy, and Jamie will usually join in, dressed in tight leather mock-S.S. uniforms, jack boots, and leather gloves. The homosexual shenanigans that follow are nearly beyond description. The whole group begins to snot each others spunk and whip each others pudgy asses with riding crops and chains until their pale, white geek bodies
Last Post! Last Post!
Sux on it, suxorz!!
It's so funny, while Congres passes gigantic privacy laws that require every doctor, dentist, pharmicist and bank (ETC.) to post their PRIVACY policies, provide opt-outs and require customer signatures annually, ANYONE can merely claim you've violated their copyright (wihout any proof or even documentation of the copyright itself) and demand and receive full personal information from an ISP.
the WIZ............
www.wizardfkap.com