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."

Comments

good news for the consumer

[micronix1]

it's nice to know that some major corporations are opposing the actions of the recording industry where the average person is usually powerless. what other internet service providers are chosing to fight the RIAA instead of just giving in?

Re:good news for the consumer

[hamster foo]

Prioritizing food, water, shelter, and clothing over the internet is hardly shortsighted.

I appreciate your point that the internet is a powerful tool for learning, and one that at some point kids should be exposed to no doubt. But giving priority to an internet connection over things they NEED is unreasonable. If you truly value internet access over feeding your kids, then I think you've found a lot more uses for it than I have.

At any rate, that's slightly off topic. Obviously, these families have the money to spend on broadband, which is the point. They are not in some position where they require our sympathy based on their financial status. They may earn some sympathy for being the little guy fighting the big bully, but certainly not sympathy for being allegedly poor, which is where a lot of the emphasis has gone in the coverage of these suits.

Bravo

[mcpkaaos]

In a world where the right to privacy is quickly giving way to nosier and nosier laws and regulations, it is quite refreshing to see a company with so much to lose fighting to maintain the privacy of their customers. Say what you will, but SBC is taking quite a risk.

Heh, I don't normally gush like this, but I have to say that I am honestly very impressed by this move. Unless this is just a ploy to gain more customers concerned with their KaZaA, er, habits. In that case, well, I'm still impressed. Brilliant marketing ploy!

Wait, SBC isn't actually OCP or anything is it? No? Okay cool. Power to the peop- er, to the customers!

Keeping Logs

[th3axe]

So, what if an ISP has a policy of trashing any logs with personal information? Maybe this is a selling point for smaller ISPs. They could track traffic for performance purposes, but once the info's in the DB, trash the data.

I can see the ad now: "Use PrivCorp ISP. We don't care what you do, and the RIAA won't find out either. You just need to pay by the meg."

Isn't there a way to spoof IP from a cable modem?

[iamacat]

Basically, request an address from DHCP and then use another one. Or spoof packets from my neighbors PC. Maybe some simple things are blocked, but I don't feel cable modem network is especially secure. At least its not using secure IP and everyone gets to see everyone's packets with tcpdump.

Anyway, if there are some known hacks, won't it be very easy to defend against RIAAs lawsuit by saying it wasn't you?

W00t for SBC corp!

[zealotasd]

SBC's general council has obviously had some council! They are not disagreeing with the RIAA; merely conditionaly agreeing with the RIAA upon proof of claim. For those of you sovereignty-type people, perhaps you would piss your pants to discover that while SBC is conditionaly agreeing to the RIAA, that subscribers to SBC are actualy vulnerable by acting in a Public/Body Corporate capacity and that SBC is not Private as it is governed by the FCC. The content of the RIAA's claims is not meritless, yet neither has the RIAA provided oath of office to represent the copyright and patent holders of the allegedly "infringed" data being processed through SBC's securitities (their data network services). Perhaps a lesson in copyright law should warrant that copyrights only apply to commercial actions. Using copyrighted and patented property is not against the law in the realm of non-commercial; be weary of using copyrighted software in a corporation, as corporations are inclusivly commercial in their nature. So, this leaves us whether SBC is liable for their (think commercial) corporation transporting copyrighted and patented tangible property to its subscribers. Be afraid for SBC...non-commercial use, need not apply unless by the RIAA's administration of force and intimidation has taken effect.

Question for slashdotters: are you a secured party?

SBC

[CySurflex]

I little OT but it comes around:

I'm an SBC DSL subscriber. Tonight I got a letter from a laywer suing SBC for class action lawsuit, claiming the service wasn't all it was claimed to be, and demanding one month free service or $20 for each participant. At first I thought "oh cool" and started filling out the form to be part of the lawsuit. After filling it out completely, and even addressing the letter, I realized I really was pretty satisfied with their service, and that this seems a little bit of a frivolous lawsuit. I tore up the letter and threw it out thinking "i'm not going to support a stupid lawsuit like this that will end up raising DSL prices for consumers".

After reading this story - I'm glad I did. Go SBC!

Re:privacy value

[dknuth]

I distinctly remember MS in the mid-90's standing up to the Fed Gov't over giving up their MS Exchange encryption keys or they wouldn't be allow to export their Exchange software (so the federales could snoop the new medium at will). No look what legal crap the've been in since. IBM gave up their Notes encryption keys without hesitation and Gates was critical of them for that.

SBC's ad is even better

[glamslam]

from the article:

A record industry official pointed to a past print advertisement from SBC's Pacific Bell unit that read, in part: "Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever."

"Sure beats going to the record store," the advertisement concluded.

Ouch. That might come back to haunt them.

Interesting.. i'd love to see an ISP do this

[Ckwop]

Thanks for the link

I would love to see an ISP use Oblivious Transfer when assigning an IP to each on of its customers..

That way, this situtation would never have happened since the information the RIAA wanted could not have been obtained from the ISPs since the ISPs wouldn't know who they assigned IPs too.

Simon

Obviously they are protecting...

[FullCircle]

Obviously they are protecting both their image, i.e. future sales, and their current revenue stream.

Seriously, how many people need dsl to check email and browse? Nobody.

P2P is the killer app that drives the internet these days.

Oddly enough, AOL, SBC and other broadband providers may actually do us a great service by protecting our rights (and possibly helping grant a few new ones)

How many other companies have enough money to both successfully fight the RIAA in court and lobby (pay for) changes in law?

These are the companies we need to rally around instead of bashing at every chance.

Hey, RIAA, Check This Out.

[E-Rock-23]

Hello. My name is Eric Jacobson. I'm a freelance computer consultant from Houtzdale, PA. And I am a filesharer.

I currently use iMesh, version 4.2, to share files over the Internet, which I get access to through Pennswoods.

Currently, I'm sharing the following eight files:

Songs by the rock band Tempered Edge:
Fade Away
Slip Into Never
Pull The Trigger
Madness Follows Me
I Need You
It's Alright
Picture This
Footsteps.

These songs are copyrighted, and I am offering them up, free of charge, to anyone who wishes to download them. The trick is, I'm the singer for this band. We own our own copyrights. We are not signed by any label, major or independant.

Come and get me...

Some thoughts

[incog8723]

The ridiculosity of this is getting out of hand. ISPs should not be responsible for this, any more than common carriers should be responsible for listening in on the voice transmissions on their copper or fiber for potential terrorist threats. This country is lost.

The *issue* here is that if litigation is going to be the order of the day, then small ISPs will be SQUASHED. If the burden lies upon the ISP, then it will loosen competition, so that only the largest ISPs (Verizon, the baby Bells, the common carriers) will be able to defend these ridiculous lawsuits. The ISP should NOT have to worry about its customers' activities. They are providing a SERVICE... nothing else.

Let's use an analogy. Imagine the year 2300.

Imagine a cell phone with close to perfect translation (A/D, with a bandwidth and sampling rate greater than CD). I send a song that I like to Joe Blow, for his opinion. Obvious copyright violation, under current laws.

Imagine now, that the common carrier of the phone service is responsible for the mutiny of the masses. The economic model devised by excessive and frivolous litigation raises prices on technology services in GENERAL.

In short, carriers should not be responsible for investigating the deeds of their customers! It's heresy! This seemed VERY clear 10 years ago. To stifle a technology that is so clearly beneficial is LUDICROUS. Copyright laws exist for a reason... to ensure that the owner makes money. Now that the ability to copy almost anything is ubiquitous, and people have demonstrated time and time again that they have no respect for the law, it would seem that copyright law should be REFORMED. If the majority of people don't agree with the law, change it!

I think most people here would agree that once you buy a CD, or a song from the internet, you should be able to listen to it a BILLION times if you want, and PLAY it for any ONE of your friends that you deem fit to hear it! I sometimes wonder... Does it matter whether I invite a friend over to hear a new album, or whether I stream the audio to him by changing the audio properties in Volume Control (in Windows) to stereo mix, so that rather than selecting microphone, you select WAV out?

I'm totally confounded by the greed in this world. Artists deserve to make a living, and I fully support them, but it ain't gonna happen if they're affiliated with the RIAA. The RIAA is a child molester, pure and simple.

Copy of my email to SBC's Public Affairs office

[mactari]

I get so fed up with RIAA FUD that "trading music == illegal activity, no matter what". There's a pretty pointed bit in the linked story, above, about an SBC advert that said, in part, "Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like."

That doesn't mean the users are being told to do anything illegal (admittedlty nor does the ad educate users in how to trade legally, but anyhow...). Here's my letter to SBC (disclosure -- I do own SBC stock):

===

Mr. Bingol:

I wanted to comment quickly on a quote I read in an article on SBC and the RIAA today.

From: http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20030916/ZNYT01/309160363

> A record industry official pointed to a past print advertisement from SBC's Pacific Bell unit that read, in part: "Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever." ...

> An SBC spokesman, Selim Bingol, said the advertisement was irrelevant. "It's ludicrous to suggest that an ad that has not appeared for many months has anything to do with today's debate," he said. "We are opposing these subpoenas because under the R.I.A.A.'s interpretation, they are a threat to consumer privacy and safety."

Though I agree with your statement, I'd like to point out that the ad says nothing that explicitly insinuates anything but a legal venture on the part of your customers. Services such as Furthurnet (http://www.furthurnet.net) offer legally downloadable music files from bands that allow taping and trading of their shows -- everywhere from The Black Crowes and The Grateful Dead and Phish to some much more fringe bands (like "The Screaming Cheetah Wheelies") that people might be interested in downloading.

There *are* gigabytes of free, high-quality, and legal music out there. Putting together a song library over the Internet is certainly a great use of the services you provide your customers, and doesn't "cost" the RIAA a dime in "lost revenue".

Thanks for your time, and best of luck with your work.

Ruffin Bailey, SBC stockholder

Lesson in keeping log files?

[schmiddy]

Looks like SBC is probably set to lose this one, if the Verizon case is any precedent. However, maybe the big ISPs could learn a valuable lesson from all the RIAA lawsuits -- since I'm sure they don't like having to dole out information to RIAA subpoenas or DMCA notices, why not just destroy logs after a short period, say one day? Better yet, compress just the basic pertinent information and hire a corporation in, say, Madagascar to store the logs. Make the claim that you don't have the storage space or whatever. Then, if the RIAA wants the logs, they'll have to deal with an out of country entity... GOOD LUCK! Plus, the logs would still be available in case it was a serious case, such as child pornography or something. Just a thought.