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.
(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.
Maybe, after examining the Verizon lawsuit, they found a loophole?
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
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."
No, download caps and per MB charges are to maximise profits at the ISP. It basically boils down to:
- Get users hooked on P2P
- Get users onto a $/MB billing scheme
- Profit!!!
Despite all the initial moaning about swamped bandwidth, once the ISPs realised that "???" could be replaced with "$/MB" P2P became the best thing since sliced bread.UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Not only does the ISP lose incentive, it also has to essentially pay for "RIAA employees." If the RIAA continually submits subpeonas for 75 people a day, somebody on the ISP payroll has to be trudging around digging up IP addresses and sending them to the RIAA.
I know that's not a huge cost, but it could be a long term expendature. Not to mention it would just plain suck to have to hire an employee to go through your own records and tattle on your customers to a bully corporation.
I would be so pissed if I had to pay for that employee!
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
"Yes and no. Why get broadband at all if I can't use the bandwidth? ISPs aren't stupid. They know one of the main drivers of Joe Blow getting broadband is p2p. If you remove that driver, then why should the average consumer buy broadband?"
When I signed up for Adelphia PowerLink, they ADVERTISED fast music downloads...
The ISP almost HAS to stick up for their clients, at least show some resistance. They could face class action suits based on their advertisements.
P2P is the "killer" app that sells broadband at home as something Joe Blow wants...
Otherwise, broadband customers would mostly be techies like us, who love being able to apt-get quickly...
Corporatism != Free Market
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.
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.
> But where would the customers go?
The point is that the customers would either go "offline" or to much cheaper dialup. Seriously, except for file sharing, most people using broadband don't need anything near that speed. When they no longer have file sharing, they'll realize they are paying way too much just for quickly-loading web pages and get rid of it. SBC and other Broadband providers know this and want to make sure that any tasks requiring high-speed internet access stay in tact, so that their business offerings are seen as needed. Also, if the RIAA gets conked on the head for this tomfoolery, other people will now have heard of MP3s & file sharing, find out that it isn't (or, as for now, shouldn't be) illegal, and say "hey, I want that broadband thing to get music too." We're in tha' money. We're in tha' money. Screw the producers, 'cuz we get free music nooooooow.