Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SBC Fights RIAA Over DMCA Subpoenas

Posted by michael on from the unprincipled-stance dept.

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.

4 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'm a little consfused here . by Troed · · Score: 5, Informative
    You're legally responsible for the actions taken place using the ISP connection you've signed yourself as responsible for.


    AFAIK - check your contract with your ISP.

    --
    it's in my head
  2. Re:I'm a little consfused here . by tybalt44 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:What chance do they have of winning this? by lordvdr · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, SBC is a REALLY BIG company. Actually, some quick research:
    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
  4. Re:Um...wife no, children yes! by tybalt44 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.