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."
(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
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.
Because when the ISP fails to protect it's users privacy, their customers will no longer trust them. They will move to another provider.
All of the ISP's know what is happening on their networks. Especially those providing broadband services, know that if the RIAA is successful in shutting down the P2P networks, it will remove a lot of the incentive for customers to pay for broadband. The cost of complying is probably minor compared to the cost of lost revenue from customers leaving those services.
What have they to gain from that?
Think about it. The ISPs who are challenging are mostly broadband providers. Do people need broadband to check email or surf the web a bit? Nope. People need broadband for filesharing. 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."
Why exactly are the ISPs so concerned with the user privacy? [snip] Fighting the RIAA will cost them money, just to protect privacy? What have they to gain from that?
/t
One of two things:
1) It costs them money to comply with the RIAA demands. They need to have staff looking up ip addresses, cross referencing them with billing records, etc etc. If the RIAA starts tacking more and more requests into a single envelope that starts to get expensive.
2) Marketing. If you have a lot of broadband customers and the money to play legal games, then this is a great way to get some good publicity amongst a very attractive target demographic.
I guess i should throw in a third option:
3) They're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and their belief that a consumer's rights to privacy outweigh a company's *right* to profit.
#!/usr/bin/english
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.
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
*snip* Fighting the RIAA will cost them money, just to protect privacy? What have they to gain from that? */snip*
How about respect and loyalty from customers.
DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
Are you paranoid? This and the following quote from the story writeup:
really make me wonder about people. These P2P users are paying customers. Sure, they may take up a decent chunk of bandwidth (and the worst of them the ISPs probably do want to kick off, but they can do that or throttle them without the RIAA's help), but if there's any legal way an ISP can get away with not disclosing this information to the RIAA, they're going to do it. I mean, their goal is to make a profit, and this is a significant selling point. If you want to use KaZaA or whatever, would you rather go with an ISP that rolls over when the RIAA even breathes in their direction, or one that will fight as hard as they reasonably can to not have to tell the RIAA who you are?
I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
Maybe, after examining the Verizon lawsuit, they found a loophole?
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
...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.
You think that ISPs want to let their users suck 100% of their bandwith 100% of the day on P2P?
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?
Why do you think that quite a few Universities have gone to throttling/closing those ports?
This has nothing to do with pay/month ISPs. Most college broadband is wrapped up in the tuition costs. My guess is that the tuition is not covering all the bandwidth that students were using.
Do you think that download caps and per MB charges over that cap are not to curb people from using P2P?
No it is not to curb people from using it, but to make more money on people using it. To the guy downloading it is still a good deal for him to pay $1/100MB(or whatever they charge) and get free songs for that price. ISPs in essence become a quasi-distributor of music without having to pay for the rights. They are making tons of money off people who p2p and don't want it to go away.
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!
You can now get a top 100 non-RIAA list from the RIAA Radar site.
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
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.
$40/month for broadband isn't too bad b/c I can get free music.
Apparently, I'm the only one who says $40/month for broadband isn't too bad b/c I can get free pr0n.
Seriously, though, the reason why I got broadband was not because of free music or even pr0n. I got it because I game, I work from home occassionally, and I like having a reliable, stable, fast connection. As a matter of fact, I just recommended broadband to a friend of mine (a newbie user even) because he wanted something faster, always-on, and more reliable than a modem (plus, he can talk on the phone while surfing), for the exact same reasons as me (i.e., not music sharing or pr0n).
Look at it in a slightly different light - and ignore RIAA for the moment. If RIAA manages to coerce the bigger ISPs into turning over records of their customers, the smaller ISP's are going to follow suit. Why? Legal Precedence.
Now, assume RIAA has pulled this off, and sues the hell out of all the P2P filesharers in the USA. (Hey Pres. Bush - RIAA is out to really screw up your economy - there suing 25% of the US population into poverty.) By getting the information from the ISP's under the DMCA, you can bet it wont be long thereafter until other companies start tossing out subpoenas for other "violations." SCO? Microsoft? The way is paved, thanks to RIAA.
Then, it gets worse. The government starts, and other businesses get involved to. And soon - an individuals right to privacy is gone, and the ISP's of the US have become nothing expect a research faciltity at the mercy of courts and lawsuits.
I helped build an ISP some years back. We did it for 2 reasons - money (of course) and to give the people in the area which we lived access to information on the Internet, anonymously if they wanted. And I suspect a fair number of the smaller ISPs out there were started by people who remember back when the net was anonymous and you didnt get your life poked and prodded by marketing agencies, sales companies, RIAA, and who knows who else, because you felt like finding a tip on how to set up Slackware!
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.
Huh? That breakup, 20 years ago, was targetted at AT&T. Even if one buys into the notion that "the government" can somehow manage to hold a grudge for two decades, why would they hold it against SBC? Their beef was specifically with AT&T. They forced AT&T to spin off a bunch of smaller, autonomous companies to conduct local operations-- the baby bells. Additionally, SBC is a consolidation of a whole mess of former baby bells and NON-bell operating companies, so they have little relation to a court action from back then.
Does "the government" despise Chevron? Exxon? Any of the other former Standard Oil companies? Same thing there. The government really doesn't care!
People need to quit thinking of the government as an entity with human feelings and sensibilities. It may be full of humans, but it's just a faceless, mindless machine.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
> 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.
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.
I would be so pissed if I had to pay for that employee!
You won't have to. It can be automated with the following simple program:
while (customer){
subpenoa(customer);
}
After all, all broadband users are obviously thieves and all P2P networks are obviously evil.
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.
Let's suppose that car dealers, the middlemen, screwed the car manufacturers and also screwed the consumers. Suppose they charged a very high price for a car, and also severely squeezed the car manufacturer at the same time.
In this case, you very well might see people stealing cars off the lot. In large numbers.
When the dictators of Romania were overthrown, people invaded the palace and looted everything. Ditto in Iraq. For what reason did people feel some right, or at least enraged enough, to do this?
But, I'll agree in principal about piracy. It is wrong. Just like looting is wrong. But are what these regimes did okay? Is it okay that the RIAA is trying to own all of our culture? Forever?
As for two wrongs don't make a right, I would say this. Sometimes, you have no other choice. You can just lay down and take it, or you can do something about it. Is it right to kick a bully in the balls? No, I suppose not.
Back to your car dealer example. Having cars, at least in the US, is almost necessary. (I also should have mentioned earlier, let's suppose that the car dealers have a cartel or a monopoly arrangement to artificially control supply and prices.) Would people begin to feel justified in stealing cars. As the prices and control got ever worse, would larger segments of the popoulation feel this way? Would this seem analogy apply to software and piracy?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.