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."
Definition of irony: a company formed from the dissolution of a monopoly talking about protecting it's customer's rights.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
The USA was the first country in the world to address Cyberstalking as a serious issue & get laws effectively punishing the same. It is really sad to see the same lawmakers give such sweeping powers to the DMCA, wherein any tom dick & harry can walk in & say "Mr.X stole my copyrighted work, I need to serve him a subpeona" & this can be handed out by a clerk in the court, without any form of checking as to who the person requsting the subpeona actually is & what his/her intentions are... how dumb can you get ?
I sincerely am hoping that this ISP wins the case/the courts wake up & see what the actual picture is.
There is a saying in the PR industry that goes something like this: "Every PR is good PR". The attacks that SCO has made against us has been one of the best demonstrations of this saying. Even though they showed a face of humanity that would make most criminals throw up, their stock went up substantialy and the officers made some serious cash.
Now look at what SBC is doing
IANAL, nevertheless I believe SBC doesn't stand a chance in court. They know it. Their General Counsel has huge balls but I think he knows that this is a great publicity. GREAT publicity.
At a time of software patents, monopolies held by incompetents and failing companies trying to kill Open Source, it sure feels good to see someone doing The Right Thing. Or at least it would seem.
After reading this story, I would switch to SBC if they covered my area ...
What about you?
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
The article said that Verizon kept its log files indefinitely where as others may have kept logs for 30 days meaning those other companies wouldn't be able to provide any information if legal battles took the courts over that amount of time. I wonder if companies like SBC start gaining customers because of these practices if other companies would jump onboard.
I can't blame you for your cynicism - I share it in copious amounts, too. Any one of us could recount a dozen times a corporation has screwed someone over for the bottom line. However, in this scenario, I'm willing to give SBC the benefit of the doubt for now.
Of course SBC is banking on this helping their image with current and prospective customers. To think they are not at least glancing at the bottom line would be ludicrous. However, there is nothing tangible, at least in the short run, to be gained by going head to head with the RIAA. Yet, the risk is high. This is like pissing on the Don's shoes when the mob come calling for their protection money. There is no sure payoff here.
Perhaps, for once, a company actually does have its customers' rights in mind? Only time will tell. I'll keep an open mind until proven otherwise. Hopefully my brain won't fall out. Again. Damn cheap hats.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
At no point are they saying that what their customers did is legal. All they're saying is they want a judge to OK the subpeana.
Cooper_007
--
If you can read this you're probably not dead yet.
Bah. Privacy and Piracy even sound the same (when I'm tired). This is about having it both ways. The /. mob opinion is like a lawyer's argument:
/. opinions are just completely nonsensical.
"File sharing is not wrong, but even if it is wrong, it's still helping bands more than it's hurting, and even when it does hurt them, the labels have no right to sue the services, just the specific offenders, but even if they do catch a file-sharer, they have no right to sue them unless the offender just happens to volunteer his name and address."
Whenever politicians ignore the suggestions that are popularized here, people always accuse them of being crooked and in the hands of industry. No one ever admits it's because the
-a
At first I was lauding SBC for not bowing to RIAA's demands - I thought "Finally, Someone standing up for the Legal system, and the correct use of it.
That was until I read the part of their advertisement on Downloading songs. SBC realizes that if a case can be brought against many of their subscribers for downloading mp3's - then by extension they were facilitating theft knowingly by advertising how to do it - this is going to be one of the most interesting legal fights in a decade.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
"There needs to be some form of ability to track someone, for those few cases where "really bad things" are done.
I'm sure nobody here would like spammers given anonymous IP addresses in a net block."
When "really bad things" are done, it usually falls to the real law authorities (police, FBI, NSA etc..) and they have procedures to get proper subponeas and get the information.
The thing is they are not talking about an anonumus block. SBC is basically saying that the RIAA is not following due process. Not only that but the RIAA is a LOBYING group, not a duly appoint police force. This is turning into a case of someone driving by your house, seeing a light in the window, walking up to that window and seeing you watching a video tape that you don't own, guessing you don't own it and didn't properly rent it, and then saying to a judge that the want all your information so they can sue you because they were in the item you were watching.
If the RIAA wants to do this, they should lobby to OFFICIALLY become a police force for the record industry and have to follow the proper procedures. Copyright Infringment is a CRIME, and thereby a lobbying group should not be the police in these matters. IMHO, the should give the IP addresses they have got to the proper authorites to deal with. Then again, the authorities have bette things to do than go after a 12 year old kid.
Just my $.02
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.