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.
AFAIK - check your contract with your ISP.
it's in my head
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
If you are trying to distribute music in bulk, you dont use dialup.
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?
You may be responsible _to your ISP_ for acts using your connection, but you can't be responsible to other parties through signing a contract with your ISP; that's just nutty.
It may be that you indemnify your ISP against actions taken against it by third parties due to acts using your connection. That is not the same as taking some sort of "legal responsibility" for acts using your ISP.
A contract *only* affects your rights vis-a-vis the other parties to the contract. It *cannot* affect your rights vis-a-vis third parties. This is a fundamental principle of contract law.
Universities have begun throttling thier ports because they don't make money off of you using thier network. Furthermore, most Universities offer you access with much greater upload and download capacity than your standard DSL/Cable modem. The killer app for broadband is p2p, and the universities don't care because they're not in the business of selling broadband. These companies, however, are.
Download caps and excess charges are partially deterrents and partially moneymakers. Much like speeding tickets.
SBC Revenue for 2002: 34B+- change
RIAA reports total retail value of shipped CDs in 2002: 12B+-
That gives SBC a much bigger chance. And you noones going to say that SBC doesn't have lobbyists. :)
And suppose that SBC does win (or some other company for that matter) and even that particular portion of the DMCA (subpoenas w/o judges) gets killed. Yes, RIAA will reissue following proper procedure. But that's much more expensive, much more time consuming, and much more frowned upon (CA has a litigous company law, and TX just don't put up w/ that sh.t.). The RIAA's 75/day stat I heard somewhere would probably drop to something like 75/mo. In the end, RIAA loses, the DMCA loses, and Kazaa will continue. -lv
If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor - Albert Einstein
(1)- Please. The cost of complying, even with hunderds of requests is close to nothing. To think that they dont have a good way to reference customer by IP is ridiculus. The government all but requires them to do so already, irrelevant of the RIAA. (2) The marketing advantage that they get is really, as other posts pointed out is in the fact that file-sharing is what motivates broadband anyways. (3) go smoke something else. they would only be concerned about it if it were profitable to them for some reason (or arrogant i guess)
This is not correct. In most places, parents are not generally held liable for the torts of their children unless they consented to, or directed the act.
Some U.S. states (actually except NH and NY appaerntly) have changed this by statute. Illinois is one... parents there are liable for intentional torts only, and the limit of liability is $1000. The average over all states is $4100 maximum liability.
Of course, these aren't torts exactly, so I'm not sure whether DMCA-type violations would be caught under these "paerntal responsibility" laws.
You can now get a top 100 non-RIAA list from the RIAA Radar site.
Actually, it is not illegal search and seizure. If you read the cyber crimes handbook the DOJ uses, you will see that they consider your computer harddrive a closed suitcase. If it is closed (ie, you are not sharing things on a network, or have a file opened on your screen when a cop is standing behind you) then you have a "reasonable right to privacy" that is protected by the 4th ammendment. However, if you make those files open to a file sharing network, or any network, or say leave an illegal picture open on your moniter and a cop walks by and sees it, then you no longer have a "reasonable right to privacy" as they equate that with leaving your suitcase open so the world can see the (insert illegal contents here) you have in there. Therefore waiving your "reasonable right to privacy". The RIAA isn't breaking into your computer to find files, it is only seeing what you are allowing ANYONE to see and download.
They are not responsible for file sharing.. Under this decision, they can not be held responsible for the actions of their users. This insulates them from lawsuits from the RIAA because their users are sharing files across their network.
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.
SBC is fighting that... so the case that you reference has no relevance at all.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Ummm, no you generally can't sue *a parent* for the actions of a child. Anymore than you can lock up a parent for the action of a child. Although there have been some exceptions to this. Generally if a kid breaks the law he/she is the one that is prosecuted. Not the parent.
Sigh. Don't even know where to start ...
Allow me to point out that you have a hazy view of "theft" that, while you believe it to be adequate or appropriate, is irrelevant. The context here is a legal one. In that context, the topic is not "theft" but "copyright infringement" and is subject to a body of law different from "theft." I'll also point out all those usenet posters committing acts of "theft of property/right to make money," have made as much money as I have from this anonymous post to Slashdot.
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!