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.
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?
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.
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."
"It's real and we can touch it, so least we know where we stand." - Jack Burton
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.
I was reading the article and this really struck me
:)
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.
-- snip --
Matthew J. Oppenheim, the trade group's senior vice president for business and legal affairs, said the ad was important because it suggested a strong motive for SBC's position. "SBC believes that free music drives its business,"
Hmmm... I guess they would make quite a bit of money from the excess bandwidth charges from people who download heaps of music. Certainly that would be a strong motive to take this stance, money is a strong motive for a lot of things.
Also.. it may be unrelated but their share price is up $0.35
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
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.
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
Companies of SBC:
Pacific Bell + Nevada Bell = Pacific Telesis
Illinois Bell + Indiana Bell + Michigan Bell + Ohio Bell + Wisconsin Bell = Ameritech
Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET)
Southwestern Bell
Pacific Telesis + Ameritech + SNET + Southwestern Bell = SBC.
Sounds to me like SBC is more like a partial re-assembly of the original monopoly.
Not that I don't respect SBC big-time for this decision.
(Source of data: US FCC, http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/carrier_filing_histor y/COSA_History/sbtr.htm)
You mean people with RoadRunner service? The very same service that uses "fast music downloads" as part of their advertising?
Mind you, they don't specify anything about the music downloads. They don't say that some music downloads are illegal. 12 year old girls are supposed to know all this stuff.
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!
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.
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.
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
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...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
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.