Slashdot Mirror
SBC Refuses To Name File-Sharing Users
securitas writes "The New York Times reports that Internet provider SBC Communications has refused to identify computer users accused by the RIAA of file-sharing copyrighted material. SBC is the largest high-speed DSL provider with over 3 million subscribers. It continues to refuse a response to the 300 subpoenas served by the RIAA despite a ruling against Verizon earlier this year. 'We are going to challenge every single one of these that they file until we are told that our position is wrong as a matter of law,' said James D. Ellis, general counsel for SBC. He continues, '...We've got a long heritage in which we have always taken a harsh and hard rule on protecting the privacy of our customers' information.' Mirrors in Tuscaloosa and Lakeland."
Its a good thing user privacy isn't worthless to everyone; just the government and microsoft.
I wish these guys served DSL where I live. It would mean I could get rid of the 'emergency Plan B' device I keep in my bedroom, one of those magnets they use to move cars.
I mean, it's great, and it's sure to work, but the switch is so close to my light switch.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Nice to know some ISP's still have balls. I dont see why ISP's tend to upgrade from FreeInformation 1.0 to Profiteering Bafoon 2.0 and now load the corprate slave modules.
+-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
Perhaps, for once, a company actually does have its customers' rights in mind?
Or just maybe the CEO of SBC has 3,000 illegal MP3s on his hard drive?
computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the
Holy crap, really? Jesus, who've I been paying $50 a month for the last two years to, then?
And then, just who the HELL IS GIVING ME INTERNET ACCESS?!?!?!?! ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
:: crawls into the fetal position and shivers.... ::
OH MY GOD, THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR LOGO ON MY BILL!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Doctor David Banner:
file trader, scientist;
searching for a way to download the hidden copyrighted files that all you little liars know you have.
Then an accidental overdose of typical SBC service alters his body chemistry.
And now, when David Banner hears any news about SBC,
whether it has to do with their patent abuse, layoffs and overseas outsourcing, or the general degradation in service quality that occurs whenever SBC takes over an outfit,
a startling metamorphosis occurs.
The Creature is driven by rage,
and wanted for sharing a file he didn't upload.
David Banner is believed to be dead,
and he must let the world think that he is dead because those bastards can sue you for $100,000 per copyright violation,
until he can find a way to control the raging spirit that dwells within him...
But now David's eyebrows are merely raised in suspicion.
What is SBC's motive in acting in the interests of their customers?
What's in it for them? What are they up to?
The Creature does not understand.
Reading a positive story about SBC on Slashdot is like reading a "SCO does something right" story on Slashdot!
Bravo! I'm not complaining, but wow...
As for SBC: just be careful. First you do one good deed, then another, and pretty soon your customers will trust you again. You don't want that! And always remember the SBC motto "our customers are the enemy!"
This is cool news... Why do I hear the victory music from Final Fantasy right now. :)
www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
You clearly have never had dealings with SBC. My god. I'm convinced appalling service is part of their business plan.
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
That is just about the wrongest thing I have ever seen in 5 years of reading slashdot
Me fail English? That's unpossible!
I think it would be cool if SBC was to copyright the user logon data, burn it to CD (adding DRM that wastes 95% of the space), price each one at $100,000 each. After all, this is valuable marketing data, and royalties should be paid to the "artists" who created it, right?
When RIAA tries to invoke their subpoena power, SBC responds with DMCA protection -- accusing RIAA of using a subpoena as a "circumvention method" to avoid paying the true market value for SBC's "intellectual property". The fact that it's mostly junk and wildly overpriced is a mere coincidence. After all, it's worth whatever SBC says it is, right? SBC could reasonably claim that they are doing precisely what RIAA does.
Have we gotten past the stage where you have to pay close to $1000.00 to be able to access this service?
Week defense? A defense that is 7 days long?
Anyone who has dealt with SBC DSL support should realize that the reason they are refusing to release the information is because they don't have it. Not wanting to appear stupid, they refuse to turn it over. When they are forced to, they'll have to admit they are in total IS chaos.
It's a "win-win" for them.