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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
Maybe, after examining the Verizon lawsuit, they found a loophole?
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
My question is, what happens to CD prices after the RIAA wins all these lawsuits, as they surely will?
Let's face the music (pun = intended) - distributing copyrighted works IS illegal, and if the RIAA gets its day in court to prove it, some users will lose. And, presumably, file sharing apps will go the way of the dodo.
However, what happens next? Personally, I think the RIAA will realize that they once again have a captive audience, and they'll raise prices to ungodly levels once again...simply because they can!
Here's to the ISPs fighting for their users' cause. They're one of the only lifelines Internet users have left. And that's pretty unfortunate.
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."
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..
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
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.
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'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.
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).
When you download a song off of kazaa ... you're stealing
You are right in your reasoning, but while this is off-topic, I do have a problem with the word "stealing." As we know, "stealing" bits is a lot different than "stealing" a physical CD from HMV. To avoid confusion, I'd like to use the phrase "using an unlicensed copy," (or something like it) as that is more accurately representative of what is happening. So, your phrase might look like:
Other than that it looks great.
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 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..
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
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!
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 used to agree with you.
Then the Sony-Bono copyright extension act was passed.
Then the DMCA was passed.
Now I consider it moral to do practically anything that helps to put the RIAA & MPAA out of business. I consider it less moral to buy their wares than to steal them.
I also consider it quite unwise to do any business of any sort with them. I don't buy Sony products of any sort. I don't buy CDs. I don't buy videos. And I argue against doing so to those who will listen.
Those who (further) corrupt the government should not be supported in any way.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.