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.
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
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?
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
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."
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
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.
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.