Charter Cable Sues To Quash RIAA Subpoenas

mattOzan writes "Charter Communications, the third largest cable provider in the United States, has filed a motion in St. Louis, Missouri, to block the RIAA's requests for the identities of about 150 Charter customers in the St. Louis area. In the over 1100 subpoenas that have been issued so far, Charter claims they are the only major ISP that has not provided the RIAA with 'a single datum of information.'"

Comments

Re:If copyright were abolished...

[geoffspear]

And if murder were legal, there'd be no need for a lot more subpoenas. What's your point?

Subpoenas?

[jbardell]

Wait, what am I missing? I A Obviously N A L, but I didn't think a private company could issue a subpoena. Is there something that I'm missing? And hoorah to Charter Communications for fighting this rediculousness.

Re:Subpoenas?

[geoffspear]

Anyone can subpoena anyone else to get information to use in a lawsuit. The DMCA makes it easier to do so in the case of alleged copyright infringement, but the right to issue subpoenas is avaialble to any person or corporation.

Re:Subpoenas?

[jbardell]

Thanks for clearing that up. Parent was in no way meant to be a troll post :(

Re:Subpoenas?

[DeepRedux]

The subpoenas are issued by a Federal district court at the request of the RIAA. The RIAA, just like any other copyright holder, can submit a sworn statement alleging a copyright violation to the court clerk and have a subpoena issued.

The party being subpoenaed (here Charter Communications) has the right to challenge the subpoena in court.

Re:Subpoenas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Slashdot, where the moderation system rewards idiocy.

Re:Subpoenas?

[Aliencow]

Subpoenas? (Score:5, Troll)
You WIN!

Re:Subpoenas?

[dosius]

It shouldn't be that way, but the justice system is teh fux0red here in teh US...

(BTW, congratulations on your +5 Troll!)

-uso.

Re:Subpoenas?

[Alsee]

can submit a sworn statement alleging a copyright violation to the court clerk and have a subpoena issued

I'd like to clarify a bit here, for other readers.

They must submit a sworn statment that they have a copyright on something - anything (or that they represent a copyright holder). This sworn statement is pretty meaningless, I can file such a statement that I am the copyright holder of this post.

Aside from that sworn statement, the paperwork must make a claim that the target of the subpeona commited infingement. Not only is this NOT a sworn statement, it can be an entirely baseless statement.

This paperwork is then given to the court clerk, NOT a judge. The court clerk's only job is to make sure you didn't botch the paperwork. He is then required to give rubberstamp approval. The involvement of the court is pure formality, in effect the DMCA grants copyright holders the power to issue subeonas. The process lacks any actual judical review.

The DMCA is an insanely lopsided peice of legislation, written by the copyright lobby for the copyright lobby. This "expedited subpeona process" granted to copyright holders is just one of many abuses written into the law. God forbid copyright holders should be forced to go through the NORMAL and LEGITIMATE subpeona process, just like EVERYONE ELSE.

-

Re:Subpoenas?

[Alsee]

The party being subpoenaed (here Charter Communications) has the right to challenge the subpoena in court.

True, but the actual person being targeted by the supeona is generally not even informed. If not for the public outrage of these events, the "party being subpoenaed"generally wouldn't have any motivation to bother to challenging even the most flawed and abusive subpeona. It is far easier and cheaper for them to simple hand over any and all information requested.

MIT made the effort to challenge one of these subpoenas and proved in court that pretty much ALL of the RIAA subpoenas were (1)unlawfuly issued AND (2)unlawfully served. Yet for the majority of these invalid subpoenas the information was handed over without challenge because the "party being subpoenaed" has little motivation to expend the time, effort, and money required to oppose even an invalid subpoena. The actual target of the invalid subpoena has his information turned over anyway.

-

Re:Subpoenas?

[Haxwell]

Can you post some links to give some context to the link you provided? I did a cursory look at the eff site and didn't see where that doc came from or what it related too..

Thanks..

Hax.

Re:Subpoenas?

[Alsee]

I just googled a Slashdot story on it, and the full set of legal documents is here, under the MIT and Boston College headings. The MIT and Boston College cases were the same.

A Washington DC court is not legally capable of issuing a subpoena compelling action in Boston. Even if they did have that power, such a subpoena could not be legally served outside the DC area.

-

Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the nice things about capitalism is that despite the fact that some companies in our country can "buy" legislature, when it starts hurting other's bottom lines, as in this case (bad for the cable company), things start to change.

Perhaps those lawyers are good for something after all.

Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[turnstyle]

Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena, they'll keep suing -- they'll just switch to John Doe lawsuits...

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[Chester K]

Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena, they'll keep suing -- they'll just switch to John Doe lawsuits...

But that will cost them money.. and the more it costs them to keep up this campaign of lawsuits, the less likely they'll collect enough in settlements to draw a profit from it; and if it's not profitable, they won't do it.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[FrozenDownload]

and if it's not profitable, they won't do it.

That never stopped the xbox. :) I guess I am comparing lawsuits to consoles, but in any case, the lawsuits is not where they are gaining most of their money, much like microsoft and the xbox. They can sustain these lawsuits/consoles because they have other ways to gain money.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[ScrewMaster]

Hardly. They are losing money hand over fist on these subpoenas and pseudo-lawsuits. Sure, they made a couple grand off of that 12 year old but that hardly pays for a few hours of attorney time. This is about intimidation, no more and no less. Yes, it is about money, but there is no intent to profit from these "lawsuits". They want people to stop sharing music via peer-to-peer in the mistaken belief that it will return their member companies to profitability. They're misguided to the point of being dangerously irrational, but there's not a lot we can do about that.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[Boogadad]

Yeah...then they'll just complain more that their profits are down due to piracy.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[fafalone]

No, they'll just blame the decrease in their revenue stream on piracy and step up their lawsuits and lobbying some more.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[tuba_dude]

I don't think that there isn't any intent to profit, because that wouldn't work to well for a business. I think that there just isn't any direct profit. Like you said, it's a misguided attempt at regaining profitability, so this is probably a short-term (and highly expensive gamble) that they hope will end up beefing up long-term cash flow.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[AvantLegion]

Or even if they "lose" the subpoena.

"looses"? Even in the right tense, it would be wrong. Why does the word "lose" baffle so many?

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[the_2nd_coming]

ah, but you see, they sue everyone, loose a ton of money on it, then tehy claim that p2p is costing them a lot of money...tehy tehy point to their first loss as proof.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[JCMay]

Possibly because they can't handle an apostrophe either. Just tonight I wrote a letter to the local newspaper:

A blinking sign on Eau Gallie Boulevard has announced that DOT workers
are as illiterate as drivers think them slothful. Located just east of
the causeway bridge and facing the westbound traffic, it warns drivers
"EXPECT DELAY'S" and "LANE CLOSURE'S."

For DOT workers unfamiliar with written English, the apostrophe is used
to indicate either the possessive case (John's car or Mary's book) or
that one or more letters were removed to create a contraction ("it is"
becomes "it's," "do not" becomes "don't"). The third-person pronoun "it"
defies the rule: the possessive version is "its," with no apostrophe.
Apostrophes are never used to indicate a plural. Properly written, the
blinking warnings would read "EXPECT DELAYS" and "LANE CLOSURES."

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[AvantLegion]

These are things (allegedly) taught to schoolchildren.

Why does correct English elude them so?

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[Intruger]

This is like war on terrorism, no matter how much it costs them they'll contiune to sue/bomb them, since they are *teh terrorists*.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[Obyron]

That never stopped the xbox. :)

At the risk of being Offtopic... I know it's fashionable to bash MS and their products, but this statement is simply silly. What you're referring to MS doing with the X-Box is called a "loss leader." They make the platform at a loss with the hopes of making up the dividends on the individual games. All the major consoles do the exact same thing as do manufacturers of printers (ever wonder why you can get a printer for 80 bucks, but the carts are 15-30 bucks each, not to mention paper?), and several other industries.

Comparing this to the RIAA subpoenas and lawsuits is just silly, and is pretty much karma-whoring via MS bashing.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[jedidiah]

Are you are something more sophisticated than a finite state automata? Then ignore the noise and simply move on.

Expecting laborers to be highly literate is rather absurd.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[AvantLegion]

"Are you are"

To quote Jules Winnfield: "English, motherfucker!"

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[PopCulture]

But that will cost them money

i don't think that matters because they (RIAA) have tons of loot. I honestly think that they believe they are losing like 30% revenues because of p2p... not because they produce overpriced crap. So, to them an "investment" to obliterate p2p users might actually be worthwhile... ugh.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[0x0d0a]

They want people to stop sharing music via peer-to-peer in the mistaken belief that it will return their member companies to profitability.

AFAIK, RIAA member companies *are* profitable -- just less so than during the dot-com boom years.

I agree with your point, though.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[FrozenDownload]

At the risk of being Offtopic... I know it's fashionable to bash MS and their products, but this statement is simply silly. What you're referring to MS doing with the X-Box is called a "loss leader." They make the platform at a loss with the hopes of making up the dividends on the individual games. All the major consoles do the exact same thing as do manufacturers of printers (ever wonder why you can get a printer for 80 bucks, but the carts are 15-30 bucks each, not to mention paper?), and several other industries.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but what lexmark does is profitable to them, what microsoft is doing is still losing them money. They are using the xbox merely to get their foot in the proverbial console door, in preparation hopefully to become profitable with the xbox2.

Next time someone mentions microsoft and one of their products, they might not be just trying to blame the problems of the world on them, and the poster might actually be talking about something that pertains to the subject.

Imagine that.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[Troed]

No, that's a popular myth. Sony and Nintendo make money on the hardware as well. The Dreamcast was the only console before the Xbox to be sold at a loss. History then tells us ...

Ah well. Congratulations, you've fallen for MS FUD.

(ps: MS would need to sell 14+ games for each Xbox to make up for the loss - they don't)

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[16K Ram Pack]

just less so than during the dot-com boom years

And who isn't?

Actually, I imagine they're really missing the glory days of people who were upgrading from vinyl.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[ross axe]

All pronouns defy the rule, which is a rule in itself. It's just that hi's and her's aren't real words, and you have to be smoking crack to write m'y

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[Jaysyn]

Well obviously we need a war on elevators too.

Jaysyn

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[Rinikusu]

Just a slight correction: If you know anything about the gaming industry, you'd know that Nintendo has NEVER ascribed to the "loss-leader" model of console sales. The gamecube makes a profit, the GBA makes a profit, etc.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[andyf]

Apostrophes are never used to indicate a plural.

That's not true, actually. An appostrophe is used in pluralizing numbers, letters, symbols, and abbreviations. See here: http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/WC/apostrophe2.html (scroll down to "Plurals of Numbers, Letters, Symbols, Abbreviations"). This means:

• compact discs but
• CD's

for example.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[JCMay]

• compact discs but
• CD's

That's always been something I thought of as ugly. I think it really should follow the standard rule: apostrophe means posessive.

• I have thirteen CDs in my collection
• The CD's label wore off and I didn't know what it was!

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[ivan256]

This is about intimidation, no more and no less.

Bullshit.

Say what you will, but the execs at the RIAA are not stupid people. They know damn well that they can't possibly intimidate enough people to reduce unauthorized copying enough to be worth the effort. For starters, they're fully aware that only the filesharers inside the US will take notice.

So, what are these lawsuits about then? Legislation. Without some form of new legislation that protects the content distribution industry, the RIAA realizes that it's members will eventually become irrelevant. If they can convince lawmakers that their falling revenue is due to unauthorized copying rather than a lack of demand for large scale physical distribution and marketing agencies, they have a chance at prolonging their existance through mandatory fees on media and taxes on digital communications to subsidize their bottom line.

Unauthorized copying or no, the service provided by the RIAA's members is not going to be required soon. No amount of anything can change that. The only plausible explanation is that these lawsuits and subpoenas are a publicity stunt. Indirect lobbying and nothing more.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[truesaer]

The gamecube is only $99....I don't see how this can possibly be profitable.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[ScrewMaster]

I don't normally reply to dickheads who swear at me, but I'm hoping you're smarter than you sound.

They know damn well that they can't possibly intimidate enough people to reduce unauthorized copying enough to be worth the effort.

Do they? You're pretty far off base, my friend. One has to question which alternate Universe you hail from. Say "hi" to Quinn and Wade for me. In any event, this is very much about intimidation. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say it is corporate psychological warfare, noteworthy only because it is being waged against their own customers. And at that, it is only one prong of their MIRV-like attack on consumer rights.

They want to convince the common downloader that he or she, or their next-door neighbor, is a likely target. In other words, not only is no-one safe, but we will get you, personally. They are counting on the basic innumeracy of the American public to pull this off.

It is true: the RIAA's few thousand subpoenas (which are not lawsuits in and of themselves, but are being used to achieve much the same effect for a fraction of the cost) are a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of downloaders. The (correct) presumption among most intelligent P2P users is that they are effectively sheltered due to the sheer volume of network activity. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unintelligent (or at least, uninformed) file-sharers out there. The RIAA is attempting to convince those people that they have a significant chance of being hit by a subpoena. This prospect terrifies most reasonable persons, and the RIAA is banking that this will discourage file-sharing. They are being cheerfully aided and abetted in this effort by the print and news media, who are serving as willing co-conspirators.

So far as the RIAA is concerned, investing a little money in filing subpoenas is a cheap investment if it cuts file-sharing by even a little. In addition, they have stated they they consider this to be an educational effort, so that the public will learn that file-sharing is illegal and will mend their evil ways. It is definitely educational: "the RIAA has to go" is the most common reaction I get.

I feel that I should point out that the only way the RIAA has managed to subpoena the number of people that they have is because of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Without certain specific provisions of that law, this whole mass subpoena process would have required judicial review, and would have been completely impractical on such a wide scale.

Your argument that they are using these abusive (and possibly criminal) attacks on individuals to justify new law is utterly specious. They are already under investigation by Congress for their actions in this regard. So if, as you suggest, they are trying to use these attacks to justify their position to our lawmakers, it has seriously backfired. As you said, the RIAA isn't stupid, and they already have a major lobbying presence in Washington. Given that these high-profile and highly unpopular attacks are upon actual voters, it's hard to imagine Congress as a whole taking anything but a very dim view of it. You'll notice that a number of Congresspersons are making anti-RIAA noises at the moment, and those that support the RIAA are maintaining a very low profile.

Without some form of new legislation that protects the content distribution industry, the RIAA realizes that it's members will eventually become irrelevant.

The RIAA (and its equally obnoxious sister organization, the MPAA) are the outfits primarily responsible for the DMCA and successor laws. They supported the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. The DMCA was implemented over five years ago, years before the current file-sharing hoopla, so obviously they don't need a bunch of stupid subpoenas to "convince" Congress of anything. They simply need to continue lining the pockets of Cong

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, I imagine they're really missing the glory days of people who were upgrading from vinyl.

Ah HA! Now we have the answer. They want to maintain that kind of profit margin, if they have to dismantle the entire U.S. economy and sue everyone with a copy of Limewire to do it.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[falsified]

CD's is wrong. It's very common, especially in America, and it may eventually become accepted, but it's wrong. The correct way is just plain CDs, 1970s, MUDs, and so on. I learned this the hard way from a Harvard-educated English teacher.

Re:Even if the RIAA looses the fast-track subpoena

[andyf]

You obviously didn't even read the linked document. It talks about how "1970's" is an older form and that 1970s is acceptable now. I was just pointing out to the parent that the using the apostrophe isn't always wrong. So your "Harvard-educated English teacher" preferred the MLA style, but that's not the only way to do things. And so, that means the parent to my comment went just a bit too far when he said an apostrophe *never* makes a plural, when in fact even the MLA would still say that, for example, "There are two l's in that word" is the proper way to pluralize "l".

Andy

Go Charter

[flyingember]

their prices may suck, they may be needing network upgrades, but go Charter!

Re:Go Charter

[CrazyDuke]

Yeah, I never thought I'd be happy to be a customer of a company that offers overpriced broadband and "We might get to it next week" service.

Re:Go Charter

[Skye16]

I feel bad for both of you. I have Charter and I have impecible service. I've had 1 network outage in a year and a half (that I was awake for). Possibly overpriced, but the day I moved to my new appartment, they were able to be there that morning and set everything up for me without a hitch.

Of course, my geographical location isn't exactly a metropolitan area. I might just be lucky because there aren't nearly as many customers here than there is for the rest of you

Re:Go Charter

[Clockwurk]

I have charter also, and on friday my service jumped from 512K/128/ to 2Mb/128K...for no apparent reason. Charter is generally crappy as far as price and service goes (just try and get them to admit a line speed issue was their fault), but it is nice that they are standing up to the RIAA.

Re:Go Charter

[Scott Hale]

Charter is changing their rates. Everyone has 2Mbit down until March, at the new price of $39.99 a month. If you were paying more than this, I suggest you call in and have your rates changed, because they will not change them unless you call. You can read more about this on the Charter forum at dslreports.com.

Re:Go Charter

[Clockwurk]

DO you have a direct link for this or some official thing from charter? I AM paying more than that per month and could definitely use a rate break.

Re:Go Charter

[Scott Hale]

http://charter.com/thankyou/

I was paying for the gold package, and I wasn't too happy that I was paying more for the same speeds as everyone else, so I called in. The first person basicly told me I was stuck with paying the gold rates. I called in a second time and they lowered my rates to $39.99.

Re:Go Charter

[uncoveror]

Charter forever. The RIAA never! Don't buy CDs.

Re:Go Charter

[Xuli]

It would be so nice to be able to opt to support such a leader in the fight against the RIAA (spare the the "it's still a giant coporation" soapbax, please, for the skae of argument) however, wehere I live, there's no option except to choose Comcast, who has readily been turning over names of their subscribers, from all I can tell.

I always hope that this is something that will change over time, as I know in past residences I've actually had a choice (hence my other reasons for not wanting to have to use Comcast) but that is not the case in Medford, MA, where I am now.

IANL, and, I have not really done all too much research on this, but itsn't this the type of situation de-regulation was supposed to quash?

it's already getting slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Charter cable sues to block music inquiry

10/03/2003

Charter Communications Inc. filed a suit on Friday seeking to block the recording industry from obtaining the identities of Charter customers who allegedly shared copyrighted music over the Internet.

Charter filed papers in U.S. District Court in St. Louis in a bid to quash subpoenas that the Recording Industry Association of America issued seeking the identities of about 150 Charter customers.

"We are the only major cable company that has not as yet provided the RIAA a single datum of information," said Tom Hearity, vice president and associate general counsel for Charter, which is based in Town and Country.

The recording association has subpoenaed information as part of its effort to crack down on illegal distribution of copyrighted music. So far, the group has filed suits against 261 people, none of them in the St. Louis area.

Charter's move Friday suggested that Charter had undergone a change of heart on the issue. On Sept. 23, after the association issued its first subpoenas to Charter in St. Louis, a Charter spokesman said the company would "fully cooperate."

However, Hearity said that statement meant only that the company would "cooperate in the sense that we're going to operate within the legal process."

Representatives at the association's headquarters in Washington could not be reached.

New Buisness Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Become ISP
2. When asked by the RIAA to give out names, purposely give out names of people who do not use the internet much, and definetly don't use Kazza
3. Sue RIAA, claiming damages.
4. Profit!!!

Re:New Buisness Plan

[c_oflynn]

Wow, and AC comment, about Profit, that is actually funny.

Oh hold on a sec, the RIAA just called, something about stopping the lawsuits and pairing up with MS to support Linux.

Re:New Buisness Plan

[CTho9305]

If they just ask, and don't actually subpoena you, are you required to provide valid information?

Re:New Buisness Plan

[The Original Atrox]

And I just got a call from Lucifer.... he is -flat vexed- over the ice forming on his floor, really beginning to wonder if ice-skates might be comeing into season down there!

Atrox

The good fight.

[Justen]

As Martha would say, this is a damned Good Thing(C).

It is interesting to note that Paul Allen is the chairman of Charter, and has been since he bought the company in 1998. Perhaps this will give fuel to the entertainment industry to say that technology, technology companies, and anybody tainted by either, are evil? (See here.)

Nonetheless, it is important that formidable companies stand up to the entertainment industry and its henchmen. Charter and Verizon (see story) are two folks who you'd want on your side.

justen

Re:The good fight.

[KrispyKringle]

I don't know. It's interesting to watch what has to be an internal struggle for many companies that are both technology and media companies, like AOL-Time-Warner or Sony. I don't think the RIAA would actually contend that technology companies are bad; they rely on those companies' cooperation to include stronger DRM in consumer electronics and computers, as well as often being technology companies themselves.

In your referenced article, Disney accuses Mac of promoting piracy. Well, in some degree, they do. I'm not defending it, but its important to note that an accusation towards 3% of the PC market is hardly the same as going after, say, Dell. Technology is the media industry's friend, so long as they manage to control its use.

Re:The good fight.

[Justen]

The struggle within technology and entertainment conglomerates (the newly rechristened Time Warner, Sony, Viacom, even Apple) is an interesting one. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of those board rooms.

But I'd like to disagree with part of and seek clarification on part of your second comment.

How does Apple promote piracy on their Mac platform? Do they do so anymore than, as you mention, Dell, or other technology companies? And Michael Eisner did, actually, attack other companies, including hp, which is a considerably larger company than Dell.

(Admittedly, I think Mr. Eisner was a little off his rocker on that day in particular. But I bet that Mike, off his rocker, is probably more sane than some of the folks at Time Warner and Sony.)

justen

Re:The good fight.

[KrispyKringle]

I didn't know he picked on Dell. That's just weird.

But in terms of Apple promoting piracy, I don't think its so much deliberate as it is that Apple caters to a certain market. Dell caters to home PC users who don't know a whole lot; Apple caters to, if not more knowledgable users in general, at least more media-savvy. iMovie is a good example of this; at least part of Apple's marketshare are digital media pros; many of the others are hobbyists.

Apple's customers often have iPods, DVD burners, broadband connections. Apple is, as you say, no more responsible for how these are used than Dell is for their digital media offerings. But Apple's customers probably do get more use out of theirs.

It crosses my mind that this was part of how Apple got the RIAA onboard with iTunes. "Look, our customers have all they need for digital music on a grand scale. If we don't provide it legally, they'll just get it illegally." It's not that Apple endorses piracy, I don't think. But you think they ever wonder how someone can possibly fill a 30GB iPod?

Re:The good fight.

[Stonent1]

Apple caters to more tech savvy people? Surely you have completely lost it. Apple macs the most idiot proof operating systems for the most ignorant users on the planet. I mean come on. Yes there are mac power users like every other arena, but the average mac user barely undersands the concept of mouse.

Lets not feed this Troll.

Re:The good fight.

[KrispyKringle]

Read what I said before you comment. I said more media-savvy. Not more tech-savvy. Apple's greatest market-share is among digital media professionals. They don't know how to code, but they do know how to rip CDs.

Re:The good fight.

[KrispyKringle]

Um. You need to chill out. Thanks for the defense and all, but, seriously. Get a life.

Re:The good fight.

[The Original Atrox]

On the point of formidable companies helping out. Yes, for now it is a good thing. But we must beware, that those who 'help' us, are doing so with the right motives. For if they have a motive other than what we are going for, we may get stabbed in the back... We dont need to be the little dogs that get the big dogs fighting.... for whichever big dog wins... they most certainly could cut us to ribbons.

Atrox

Re:The good fight.

[KrispyKringle]

Hey, it's cool. I'm sure I've done that before, too. And you do see a lot of nonsense on Slashdot ;)

I know I'd prefer OSX over Windows any day (being solely a Linux user on my desktop, though), if only I could afford it, but I don't think I'm representative of most Mac users. But since the Mac customer base is so small, all those media pros definitely play a big role.

Claim

[someguy456]

Charter claims they are the only major ISP that has not provided the RIAA with 'a single datum of information.

I could've sworn Soutwestern Bell hadn't furnished any of its customers' information at the RIAA's request either...

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuits

[kaltkalt]

please don't compare the coffee suit to the 'it made me fat' suit. If you have ever read more than a headline in your entire life, you'd know there's a difference between the two suits.

The fight continues.

[code_echelon]

Its good to see another company steeping up and trying to protect people from the RIAA. The more companies that do this the better, this issue is getting a lot of attention and with more companies fighting back the attention will continue to grow. No matter what, when this is in the news the RIAA continues to look terrible and creates more and more enemies. Many of the people that they are suiing are parents of children who have done the downloading and this really upsets and hits home for many American households. When this started off it was just mainly people interested in legal matters and people that are interested in computers that were following the story. As it continues it has really started to affect the average person as the lawsuits are so prevelant and directed at anyone. There are also many political groups now who are trying to step in and fight the RIAA. In my opinion all the companies fighting the RIAA and all the negative press against them is another step forward. I think that the current buisness model that they are using is going to have to change or those that can change it will step up and do so. Many people around the world have been brought up in an era of downloading music and will never purchase there cds at there current prices again. What happens to the RIAA if they stop the downloaders(which they never will) and no one goes back to purchasing there cds.
Making this many enemies is never a good thing for an association that relies on purchases from the people that they have upset.

Re:The fight continues.

[Kerbz]

I don't believe that Charter is spending time and money on this because it wants to "protect people from the RIAA". They are most likely doing it to avoid spending the time and money necessary to track down and deliver the information currently requested, AND (primarily) to avoid spending money on the resources that would be necessary to fulfill the inevitable and relentless future subpoenas.

Re:The fight continues.

[kimgh]

I keep waiting to see what happens when the RIAA sues the child of a Congressperson.

Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

AOL is this huge turd of an ISP and they get only 2 subpoenas, when the other ISPs get 100s?

Either all AOL users are very nice honest people (not bloody likely), or they are all (minus 2) so inane they only know the "you've got mail!" part of the internet, or somebody at the RIAA is on AOL's payroll ...

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[TSMABob]

Or...

AOL/Time Warner also has control over record making and has close ties with the RIAA...

Why else would the RIAA stay away, they don't want to hurt their friends.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Zebbers]

aol is mainly dialup users methinks

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Mechamse]

I think you can assume from the AOL side of the world, the DO only know the "You've got Mail" part. AOL users tend to be the lowest end of the Users specturm... This is from data of over 500 people that I have collected over the last few years.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Why else would the RIAA stay away, they don't want to hurt their friends.

Yes, but why subpoena them at all then? either AOL cooperates and releases users' identities voluntarily because they're in bed with the RIAA, or they don't. Why 2 supoenas? It should be either 0 or hundreds ...

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[nullp0inter]

AOL - Time - WARNER

that Warner = Warner Brothers as in the large record company.

Now you see why their customers dont get subpoenas. RIAA is giving prefrence to AOL/warner customers, suing AOL competiors.

Using DMCA and this free reign to issue subpoenas to whoever they choose, unchallenged by due process of law and the legal system, as an anti-competitive measure.

Go charter go!! The more lawyers on the RIAA's ass the better.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[fuzzix]

When I was on dialup I used P2P nets to swap files (not saying which files...)
Funnily enough now I got broadband I haven't found myself using this killer app so much.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[TheTimoo]

The link to the list shows that Time Warner Cable is first runner up with 148 subpoenaes. So that can't be it then. But isn't it that most AOL accounts are dialup? Thougt I read something like that somewhere...

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[ScrewMaster]

I personally know several AOL users (really!!!) and not one of them would capable if installing, configuring and using a P2P application. So, if the balance if AOL users are equally challenged from a computer literacy perspective, it is entirely possible the AOL just doesn't have a large number of copyright infringers.

Conversely, it could just be possible that the average AOL subscriber is so computer-savvy that he actually knows how to disable uploading in his P2P software, or at least knows to point his upload folder to an empty directory.

Well ... maybe not.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[mOdQuArK!]

Nah, it's just that AOL's IP interface sucks so bad, that anyone running P2P using AOL has such a low bandwidth rating that they don't show up on the RIAA's monitoring services.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[ScrewMaster]

And you're being very kind calling AOL an "Internet Service Provider." They are actually a PSP (Proprietary Service Provider) that has been known to offer a gateway to the Internet.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[yournic]

according to this http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/arc hive/001022.html Webpage 148 Time Warner Cable customers information has been subpoenaed AFAIK Time Warner Cable and AOL/Time Warner are the same companies... AOL is getting subpoenaed just not so much in the Dialup department... Something probably more interesting is how no one from MSN has been subpoenaed, they do both Dialup, and DSL (though qwest but again, AFAIK MSN is the ISP there

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[ReNeGaDe75]

Yea, sueing our friends would just be morally wrong. Let's sue our customers instead.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[geoffspear]

People who steal from a company are not their customers.

You probably hate retailers that don't make their stores attractive to shoplifters, too.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[rzbx]

Time Warner Cable???? Did you forget about them? Heard of Road Runner? One must question why they are not going after AOL/Time Warner customers.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[El]

If they were smart enough to set up a P2P client, they'd be smart enough not to pay $25/month for a slow dial-up connection. When you're bandwidth limited, constantly being kicked off, and paying by the hour, it probably doesn't make much sense to run Kazaa, does it?

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Our Man In Redmond]

Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that the RIAA is tracking people by IP address. This is more or less impossible if the person you're tracking is coming in from AOL, because everyone accesses the Internet proper through an AOL firewall/proxy, so the person you're tracking has the same IP address as all 3,743 other AOL users in Des Moines, Iowa.

What I'm wondering is, how they managed to find two people to subpoena from AOL.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Flingles]

Lol I once paid $25 a month for dialup. Then again this is in Australian dollars (60 US cents), it was good speeds, and unlimited access. Suck it AOL users!

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[jpu8086]

"and paying by the hour"

Where are you? in 1998?
AOL changed to unlimited-login time policy a long, long time ago. Thats why they started charging an unlimited fee ($20 first, bumped to $22, and now stabized $24 + tax).

PS: Hey, do you want to buy any of my tech stocks? I'll give them to you at half the 1998 market price.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[ReNeGaDe75]

They're not thieves, they're copyright infringers.
A thief is someone who takes something away from its rightful owner without their permission. When you download on Kazaa, the file is offered to you, and the originator retains a copy of it. Get it right.

And besides, most people who download music also buy music. Therefore, they are customers.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[TC (WC)]

What I'm wondering is, how they managed to find two people to subpoena from AOL

Maybe they sent subpoenas for the firewalls, those dastardly individuals downloading terabytes of music files!

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Lord_Dweomer]

Maybe this is because AOL is part of Time Warner and thus does not want to lose customers to lawsuits?

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[El]

Why yes, it has been almost 10 years since I had anything to do with AOL! You can still get unlimited access much cheaper, in the $9 to $14 a month range no matter where you are.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[cyt0plas]

Well, the AOL users tend to fall into 2 groups. 1) Proxied Dial-Up Users. Not worth the effort usually; too slow to do much harm. 2) "AOL For Broadband". Just lets you use their overbloated software on top of a real ISP. Kazaa/Bearshare/Whatever else uses the real connection; AOL is bypassed.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[thdexter]

Um... I don't know that that's right. When I was on AOL I used Firebird sans any firewall configuration. AOL users are on the Internet proper with an IP address and all.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[The Original Atrox]

Nicely put sir. I have been saying this for years now, and have only been ignored. The most common answer is "It has the internet." To which I say "yes... it lets you contact the internet... but not without going through -its- graphical interface, not without seeing -its- advertizements, and not without being steered twards -its- favorite canidates to provide certain services... ala weather, tv listings, etc." to which the majority respond "Ohh... why would I want to use any other?" To the ones I dont like... I almost yell "Cause the others are BETTER!"... to the ones I feel pitty for, I just shake my head and walk away... If only others could see this simple fact, that AOL isnt an ISP... just a PSP. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Atrox

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[augros]

Their proxies are transparent, so you don't need firewall configuration.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[Motherfucking Shit]

This is more or less impossible if the person you're tracking is coming in from AOL, because everyone accesses the Internet proper through an AOL firewall/proxy, so the person you're tracking has the same IP address as all 3,743 other AOL users in Des Moines, Iowa.

To the best of my knowledge, this is true only of outbound web traffic. AOL users do receive a dynamically assigned, "real" IP address when they connect, just like customers of other dialup ISPs. They can indeed participate directly (i.e. no firewall) in P2P networks, run FTP servers, and do a lot of other things most people would probably never bother to do at 38,400 bps.

My guess is that the reason AOL has received so few subpoenas is that dialup ISPs are probably not rife with filesharing. RoadRunner, Time Warner's cablemodem service, has received plenty of subpoenas - even the infamous munkyspanker21 listed in the first round of subpoenas was a RoadRunner user - so there's no "leave AOLTW alone" conspiracy.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[0x0d0a]

I personally know several AOL users (really!!!) and not one of them would capable if installing, configuring and using a P2P application.

They don't have to be. They just need to be able to use it and know someone who knows how to install and configure the thing.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[caudron]

It's AOL/TimeWarner, and TimeWarner is a member of the RIAA. I don't think it's too paranoid to say that AOL is being largely ignored in favor of suing other peoples' customers first.

-Tom

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[stuartkahler]

Considering that AOL and Warner Bros. (an RIAA member) are both part of the same company, AOL Time Warner, I would expect the subpoenas to be unnecessary.

Re:Only 2 subpoenaes to AOL ??

[regen]

somebody at the RIAA is on AOL's payroll ...

Actually, they are. The parent company of AOL is AOL Time Warner (maybe they are just Time Warner now). Another one of the companies in TW is Warner Bros. Music, one of the funder of the RIAA.

users of netzero and MSN not sued

[civilengineer]

None of Netzero or MSN users have been sued by RIAA according to the link provided in the article. (1100 subpoenas) I wonder why?

Re:users of netzero and MSN not sued

[KillerHamster]

In the case of NetZero, the connection is so slow that running Kazaa isn't worth the effort. Seriously, in the few months we used NetZero, I never downloaded music because it just took too darn long.

Re:users of netzero and MSN not sued

[rhuntley12]

MSN's upstream isn't all that great? 256K up for DSL through Qwest/MSN. Or they just don't want to piss MS off?

Re:users of netzero and MSN not sued

[bi_boy]

I wonder why too, why don't you tell us?

Re:users of netzero and MSN not sued

[reub2000]

Yeah, probably didn't want to piss ms off. The last thing the recording industry wants is to be fighting a company as big as microsoft.

Re:Is Charter Microsoft?

[piku]

http://www.chartercom.com/aboutus/ourstory/ourstor y.asp

"Years ago, Charter Communications Chairman Paul Allen envisioned a Wired World - a global broadband network that would interconnect every home, facilitating the convergence of television, computers, the Internet and communications.

Today, Paul Allen is Charter's largest shareholder. And with interests in more than 100 other world-class enterprises and investments dedicated to improving the way people live, learn, do business, and experience the world, he and his portfolio companies are creating a Wired World."

I think she married the big mac guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think she married the whale who sued Micky D because he super-sized himself to blimpdom.

They happily live in a new subdivision in the country, where they are suing the 115-year-old family farm nearby out of business over the smell of cow manure.

They have two happy children: Skip, who fell off a ladder and got $16 million from a ladder company, and Judy, who was driving 80 mph drunk and wrecked her car but got Ford to pay her $40 million because the firestones were bad.

They voted in the Florida election, where they each punched a chad for Buchanan. In December, they changed their mind about their vote and sued the Republicans for disenfranchisement.

Re:I think she married the big mac guy.

[Jaysyn]

I used to live near a dairy farm that resprayed the manure as fertilizer, man did it stink. This wasn't rural, this was in the middle of a city, and short of burning the pasture down there wasn't anything that could have been done about it according to the city & police.

Jaysyn

Re:datum?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what all those numbers in your post mean, but I assume it has something to do with what you think the word datum means. You should know that datum is simply the singular form of the word data, which is plural.

Bog them down with litigation

[Anonymous Coward]

They stole source code from KaZaa to make the lite version, they violated the license agreement to abuse network resources. They should be subject to the DMCA sword they weild as they have abused and stole intellectual property.

I hope Charter keeps them tied up in litigation while other Software distributors who have had THEIR networks hacked and violated by them levy lawsuits down upon RIAA. The only thing RIAA needs to know is how much love is NOT there for them and chances are the majority will fall in line with any who oppose them.

Think the "Music" industry is hurting how? Boycott all CD/DVD/Tape purchases for a full year and listen to the good ol radio...see how much money they have to harass people when they break the laws they weild themselves. (Just go to the concerts, thats where muscians make their money anyway.)

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[TheShadow]

Boycott all CD/DVD/Tape purchases for a full year and listen to the good ol radio

Ummm... if you really want to boycott the music industry... you'll have to stop listening to the radio too. They do get paid each time a song is played.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[Mantorp]

is there something similar to Nielsen ratings for radio?

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[HexRei]

AFAIK this is UNTRUE. Legally radio stations can play any track they want without paying the RIAA a dime because the exposure that the artist and their music receives is considered to be fair compensation for the cost of the song.

In fact, in many cases it's just the opposite, record companies spend a great deal of money trying to convince radio DJ's to play their music.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[domc]

Yes

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[geoffspear]

Well, that's partially true, since RIAA doesn't control broadcasting rights and thus gets no money for them. However, radio stations do have to pay ASCAP and BMI for the right to broadcast music.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[mikeswi]

Think the "Music" industry is hurting how? Boycott all CD/DVD/Tape purchases for a full year and listen to the good ol radio...

Actually, boycott only those who are associated with the RIAA. They don't have every single artist, althought it seems that way sometimes.

Go here and check it out before buying a CD. If it's listed, skip it and maybe even write to the label explaining they just lost a sale.

If your favorite artist is signed with a label that's part of the RIAA, don't buy their CDs, but do buy their merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc) and concert tickets (even if you can't go, buy a ticket and give it to someone who can). Support them in a way that cuts out the label and gets the money more directly to them.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[Uncle Gropey]

Yes there is.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[chl]

you'll have to stop listening to the radio too. They do get paid each time a song is played.

Pssst. They are not supposed to know about that backchannel in every radio set that we use to spy on them. They must continue to think that their radio consumption is private.

chl

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[TheShadow]

And where do you think that money goes? To the copyright holders.

"But aren't the artists the copyright holders?," you ask.

No. The RIAA member companies are. At least most of the time anyway.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[DoktorGonzo]

Ummm... if you really want to boycott the music industry... you'll have to stop listening to the radio too. They do get paid each time a song is played.

If a song is played on the radio and no one is tuned in to hear, does it make any royalties?

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[shark72]

"Ummm... if you really want to boycott the music industry... you'll have to stop listening to the radio too. They do get paid each time a song is played."

The artists and composers get this money. Licensing for radio airplay is handled by ASCAP and BMI, two non-profit societies that are operated by and for artists. They are not related to record companies or the RIAA.

In short: the money doesn't go to record companies or the RIAA.

I am aware that artists and composers are also part of "the music industry" but in the eyes of the typical /. reader, the artists and composers are the good guys, right?

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[shark72]

"And where do you think that money goes? To the copyright holders."

No... the money collected from radio stations by ASCAP and BMI go to artists and composers. This is what ASCAP and BMI do... collect money for artists and composers. They are run by and for artists. They are not related to the RIAA.

These aren't deep dark secrets I'm revealing. Just go to www.ascap.com or www.bmi.com and read up.

You're spreading misinformation about copyrights, as well. Typically, the copyright on the recording is at least partially owned by the record company and/or the producer, as they spent the money to have the recording made. The words and music are typically owned by the folks who write the words and music.

Record companies are evil enough even if you stick to the facts; you don't need to just make shit up.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[gl4ss]

there can be special deals between copyright holders and radio stations, and i imagine the bigger pop channels do these deals to get it cheaper than through the normal system(and music companies use these to push the shit for people).

i don't know how far it is possible in the states to give up your rights on something you made though, so the recording company might end up owning the rights totally(afaik/iirc couldn't happen here where i live on the same scale). iirc the beatles members don't have the rights to their songs anyways anymore(and if i do recall correctly, they don't even have the re-recording rights or what they're called).

besides than that on the mainstream music nowadays the real money grabbers from the bigger pop stars are the producers(of course, the producers end up being the ones responsible for actually making the music for the pr 'artist' so i guess it's ok).

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[shark72]

What you're referring to by "re-recording rights" are known as publishing rights -- the ability to do new things with the words and music, such as license them to a cover band, or put the song in a movie (which also requires permission of the rightsholder of the recording itself).

This here page does an excellent job of explaining how the Beatles' publishing rights are owned. Said rights were not unfairly ripped from the hands of the Beatles by the evil RIAA; publishing rights can be bought and sold, and that's what happened here.

While it's possible for the record company to own the publishing rights to a song as well as the recording itself, it's not that common, at least among decent music (where the singer or performer writes their own stuff). At any rate, if you write a song or a piece of music, nobody can take ownership away from you against your will. If a songwriter or composer opts to sell the publishing rights to somebody else, or enter a work-for-hire relationship, that's entirely their choice.

Re:Bog them down with litigation

[fishbowl]

Ahhh, you're getting there!

If we can just stop buying consumer products, we could bring about sociological and economic changes that would rival the industrial revolution itself. Not saying that's a good thing, mind you.

I'm pretty much immune to the advertising for most products. For instance, household cleaners. I know enough chemistry to understand the few active ingredients and how they work, so brand names are just irrelevant. Maybe a better example: Say, I need to lower the pH of my aquarium. Do I go to the pet store and buy an expensive "tropical fish pH reducer", or do I balance the pH myself with acetic acid or sodium bicarbonate? (I'll give you one guess). The only time "brand name" enters into it, is where I decide which antacid tablet contains the least crap besides the active ingredient.

Maybe an even better example. I'm immune to advertising that tells me which shaving lotion to use. Why? Because I've found that a simple hair conditioner makes a far better shaving lotion than anything in an aerosol can, and goes extremely further on the dollar.

I wish people could go back to making their own cleaning and hygiene products, growing their own food, making their own music, and generally tending towards self-sufficiency.

statistics of riaa

[potpie]

the riaa claims to have lost millions of dollars. The yearend reports can be found here in pdf format:
http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/yearend.asp

note that the sale of cd's has dropped less than 10%, and that the sale of DVD video and DVD audio has risen far more. The riaa doesn't seem to talk about that much, does it?

Re:statistics of riaa

[MaxiCat_42]

>the sale of DVD video and DVD audio has risen far more

Yep they ignore a few blinding facts. You get a lot more for your cash with a DVD and the prices match the age of the thing they are selling. Why can I buy a DVD of a 30-year old feature film like 'Bullet' (and enjoy it) for 5 GBP but I still have to pay around 20 GBP for a CD of 'Dark Side of the Moon'. I would like a CD copy of that album but not at that price!

Re:statistics of riaa

[hhknighter]

of course not; that's a logical explanation, so no.

Think of the situation as a fairy tale. Like a person who couldn't figure out what the cause of the problem is and just started to make assumptions and blames.

I can understand why no one thinks that way though. I mean the ending would be too much like a typical horror book rather than a fairy tale:

"Oh wait a minute, maybe it's simply because of the music we choose to represent and the popular culture is getting old......maybe if the music representation was really music and not just image....NO! I lost that trend of thought! What was that?!"

Props to charter

[Mr.Zong]

All i can say is that while their tech support/service (general customer care) is more then lacking, the fact that they lifted the cap of all cable subscribers for a year and half (up here in MI, btw, were getting 2mbit dl's for basic price), and are now taking this stance against totalitarism , has made me a loyal customer for (hopefully) years to come. Keep it up guys!

Re:Props to charter

[Corbin Dallas]

I am totally with 100% of what you said. Their tech support sucks ( don't even bother telling then you run Linux ), but they're kindly giving away Premium bandwidth to Basic customers until March 04, apparently for downtime growing pains that I didn't notice. Now that they're falling on my side of the RIAA issue, they've definately earned my loyalty.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuits

[fuzzix]

Indeed. It was found that the McD's coffee was served at an incredibly high temperature and that many hundreds of people had complained of being burned previous to this case. I've spilled coffee on myself before (call me an oaf if you must...) and suffered extensive staining of my t-shirt at worst.
Hundreds of people complaining over the course of several years is a little different to a bunch of obese idiots who believed McDonalds ashburgers are "the healthiest thing in the world." I wouldn't even eat one of them...

Very Pragmatic of Charter

[Crashmarik]

The RIAA suing parents and accounthoulders could kill isp business. Nobodys going to want always on broadband in their home if it makes them a target of financialy devastating lawsuit. So for Charter, Verizon, Etc, they can either fight now or watch the RIAA's scare campaign cause their customers to pull internet access.

Imagine parents hear that one of their neighbors got sued by the RIAA because their kid was misusing the internet. They most likely have a vague idea of what the net really is and even less idea what their kid does with it. The likely response pull the plug. The net is just not that big a deal in their lives.

Re:Very Pragmatic of Charter

[gwydi0n]

woohoo! more bandwidth for me! Now where did I put those .torrent files...

Cooperate ... within the legal process ...

[leoaugust]

On Sept. 23, after the association issued its first subpoenas to Charter in St. Louis, a Charter spokesman said the company would "fully cooperate." However, Hearity said that statement meant only that the company would "cooperate in the sense that we're going to operate within the legal process."

This is a very insightful comment because it reflects that Charter top-brass probably understands that the legal system is an essentially incomplete system.

If they are smart enough, and can raise the higher-level-than-legal-level issue of social good using the statutes provided by the legal system, they might be able to create an assertion in the legal system that talks about its own unprovability in court, in which case the court might - not fully comprehending the incompleteness of formal systems - look for the validity of the assertion in the social system, wherein they will discover that it is ridiculous for the RIAA to claim no legitimate uses of the P2P.

And Equally ridiculous for the RIAA to claim that by supressing all economic activity not under its control it has somehow raised the total level of economic activity. Reflecting upon how patently untrue the RIAA has been so far, may cause the courts to self-reflect upon their own behavior, in which case there may be a spark of intelligence ... upon which my sig will come alive. As my current sig is Die Die Metallica, Die Die RIAA, Die Die My Darling , its coming alive will cause the death of the RIAA, and Charter may never have to prove the assertions it made fully understanding the unprovability of its assertions ....

Sorry, if have been caught up in some strange loops. I was just rereading Hofstadter's GEB and could not help but ...

hooray for charter!

[banks]

Not only are they resisting the jackboots, they're also one of the few modern non-scientific entities I've heard using "datum." So many people today think that "data" is singular/plural. It's infuriating- one wonders if schools even teach grammar any more.

Re:hooray for charter!

[geoffspear]

Yeah, but they're using it wrong. A "datum of information" is nonsense. Would you say, "We provided RIAA with several data of information"?

Re:hooray for charter!

[Flingles]

school my doesn't

Re:hooray for charter!

[Fortyseven]

Hooray, indeed!

But I really need to know...

[GillBates0]

Charter's move Friday suggested that Charter had undergone a change of heart on the issue. On Sept. 23, after the association issued its first subpoenas to Charter in St. Louis, a Charter spokesman said the company would "fully cooperate."

just how much of this benevolent change in heart was motivated by the competing DSL providers standing up for their customers. They were busy licking RIAA's feet while the telcos were saying this, this and this.

Re:But I really need to know...

[papasui]

Actually for as long as I've worked for them (2 years) customer service/protection has been a very high priority.

Re:Few complaints

[fuzzix]

I can only speak from my own experience - I have never required surgery after spilling coffee on myself.
Sure, she should have been more careful (holding a drinking vessel between your legs is a bad move in any circumstances) but a beverage shouldn't do that sort of damage when spilled - accidents will happen...

Who's Better?

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA or cable monopolies? It's the battle of the state-supported corporate mind controllers!

Matt

hysterical: "operate within the legal process"

[sacrilicious]

Article says:
Charter's move Friday suggested that Charter had undergone a change of heart on the issue. On
Sept. 23, after the association issued its first subpoenas to Charter in St. Louis, a Charter
spokesman said the company would "fully cooperate." However, Hearity said that
statement meant only that the company would "cooperate in the sense that we're going to
operate within the legal process."

As opposed to not operating within the legal process? Of *course* they're going to operate within the legal process. I guess their PR person couldn't bear to admit that at first they folded faster than superman on laundry day. But bless 'em for eventually deciding to have more than a knee-jerk PC reaction, even if it's profit-driven.

Asscroft: I demand that you take immediate steps to prevent terrorists from distributing kiddie porn in the Amazonian rainforest!
MoneyCo: Obviously we'll comply in every way possible.
(examines books, does spreadsheet)
MoneyCo: Hmm, what we meant was, we'd comply by saying something you wanted to hear at the time.

why the excitement?

[mOoZik]

As much as we may question the RIAA's motives, law is law, and if you deny the RIAA the information of those who violate THE LAW then you may as well deny other, more "legitimate" businesses and corporations rights to what they own. Again, I disagree with the RIAA and the motives they use, but this isn't a chance for vigilante ISP's to deny the RIAA what it is entitled to under law.

Re:why the excitement?

[jonbryce]

The issue is that anyone can go to the court with an IP address and date/time, say that they were infringing their copyright and get their address.

It may have nothing to do with copyright, they might just want to stalk them.

Re:why the excitement?

[ScooterBill]

The ease with which the RIAA can issue subpeonas is the problem not the compliance with the law. This ability to issue a court order WITHOUT going through the normal channels should never have been allowed and will be challenged in court and hopefully found unconstitutional.

The bigger picture is the trend towards less and less judicial oversight. Ashcroft is the man behind much of this trashing of the constitution. I'm surprised he hasn't sided with the RIAA in the name of fighting terrorism.

M

Re:why the excitement?

[mOoZik]

Surely, these can be addressed during the trial, and if the motives for acquiring subpoenas are found to be sketchy, then appropriate action will be taken at that time. By denying the RIAA the issuing of subpoenas, then the ISP is is failing to follow the law, which perhaps the RIAA failed to do in acquiring them. Two wrongs don't make a right in this case, even if you're on the other side of the issue. The courts that granted the subpoenas should be criticized, not the RIAA.

Re:why the excitement?

[Genjurosan]

You've missed the point totally. The law is the law until it's changed. And to change this BAD law, these actions need to be taken by those that disagree with the bad law. Even you say you disagree; however, you offer no solution.

BTW, the RIAA is not entitled to shit. It's allowed to access the information by the law. Legal 101.

Re:why the excitement?

[0x0d0a]

vigilante, n : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily

I believe the word you wanted was "rogue", not "vigilante".

Re:why the excitement?

[Alsee]

law is law, and if you deny the RIAA the information... it is entitled to under law

Are you suggesting that Charter is plans to violate the law? Because your comment is pretty pointless otherwise.

Charter is perfectly within the law to question the subpoena in court. They will only be "denying RIAA the information" if they WIN in court. And if Charter WINS in court then the LAW IS THE LAW and the RIAA was NOT "entitled to [it] under law".

As a matter of fact essentially every single RIAA subpoena has been (1)unlawfully issued, and (2)unlawfully served. If you doubt that then I suggest you go argue with the Honorable Judge Tauro, United States District Court. Virtually every RIAA subpeona carries the same two defects as the ones directed at MIT and Boston college. Virtually all of the information turned over to the RIAA thus far has been turned over based on UNLAWFUL legal proceedings.

You aren't motivated by the text of the law. You believe the people using P2P are the "bad guys" and you want to "get" the bad guys. Fine, lets assume the people using P2P are the bad guys. Anything the "bad guys" have done pales in comparison to the danger of trying to "get" them through unlawful means. If a police officer violates the law in order to catch a vandal, the valdal goes free because the police violating the law is a far worse danger than any criminal.

If "the law is the law" then every RIAA case should be thrown out of court and any further actions should proceed in COMPLIANANCE the law.

I happen to think there are severe problems with current law, but that isn't really the point here. I think the RIAA is abusing a bad law, and I will unashamedly cheer every time they trip over valid law in the process.

-

Something else that's bothering me

[El]

One of my neighbors has been fooling enough to set up a wireless router with no encryption. If I now run P2P software through his cable connection, can he be sued by the RIAA? Is "gee, I'm stupid enough to leave my cable connection wide open so anybody can use it" and affirmative defense?

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[mOoZik]

That's something I've been thinking about, too. Say I take my laptop to Starbucks (or one of plenty of non-WEP access points) and start sharing 20K files on kazaa, who will be responsible? They certainly won't be able to find me.

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[LiquidCoooled]

I think I would do the inverse.

Leaving an open wireless net MAY be enough to enable reasonable doubt that you were the infringer to allow these lawsuits to simply vanish.

Since I'm in England these dont effect me (yet), but I doubt it will be long before similar actions start.

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[El]

Does Kazaa even work behind a firewall doing NAT? It seems like all incoming connections would be blocked...

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[Frobnicator]

The cable user with the open wireless access point can claim he is an ISP to avoid prosecution?

Maybe, but then the user should expect see a massive bill for ISP-charges of $10,000 each month, retro-active for his entire time of service.

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[camperslo]

>Say I take my laptop to Starbucks..... They certainly won't be able to find me

Beware of Cookies and JAVA!
If they don't bully the hotspot provider into filtering ports, they'll be tracking you by dropping a sugar coated RFID bug in your coffee. That's in case your location or the weather don't allow the satellites to scan the UV-readable barcode on your forehead, and you're out of view of the cameras in-store, at nearby traffic signals and those watchful ATM machines. Although your IP is more than likely changing from one location and session to the next, chances are you don't alter your MAC (hardware) address, so they're tracking use of your machine too.
- - - - - -
Todays theme: "Sweet Sixteen"
George W. - 16 Words, Arnold S. - 16 Women

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[Alkonaut]

I think there would be a thin line between "stupid enough" and "willfully blind". The same is probably the big question for FreeNet etc. If I know there may be illegal stuff going on, but I don't really want to find out what, to be able to deny it, can I then be called innocent?

Heck, when stupidity and ignorance is criminal, the whole U.S. gov't would have to be rebuilt from the ground...

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[linuxbikr]

Yes, it does.

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[petermdodge]

At least in Canadian law, the answer is no, via a concept we call "willfull blindness" If you do not exercise due diligence in protecting yourself, and willfully ignore people using your network, then you are fully liable. Or, as a friend of mine taking law in Carleton would put it "stupidity is never a defence."

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[Alsee]

reasonable doubt

Reasonable doubt is the standard in criminal cases. In civil cases the standard is 51%.

The good news is that I think if you stand up in court and claim that you didn't do it, that it came over your open network, then the RIAA probably has no way to claim that it is false. The RIAA can say they don't beleive you, but they have no reason to claim your statement is false. You'd probably win

The bad news is that to reach that 51% belief of the court I think you probably need to directly make that claim under oath. If it's true, no problem. If it's not true you risk getting nailed for lying under oath.

I invite anyone more knowledgable to correct any errors in my good news / bad news comments.

-

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[Alsee]

"willfull blindness" If you do not exercise due diligence in protecting yourself

I'm pretty sure the standard for "willfull blindness" is far higher than that, at least in US law :)

From what I know it only applies when you have some actual duty to be checking something and you are shown to have conciously avioded that duty. For example a bank manager has a duty to actively look at certain sorts of suspicious activity.

If you simply set up a wireless access point for a home network I don't think you have any duty to "protect yourself". It is perfectly reasonable for someone to be completely ignorant of the possibility that someone outside the house might be able to conenct to your access point. And even if you are aware that outside people are connecting to it, I don't think it is "willfull blindness" not to monitor every packet. If I let someone use my phone it isn't willfull blindness when I don't monitor what they say for illegal activity.

I'm pretty sure it requires an actual duty and an actual intent to aviod that duty.

-

Re:Something else that's bothering me

[Alsee]

RIAA's made a point of only going after sharers

No, they have only gone after "sharers" because they can't touch "downloaders". Downloading isn't infringement. Check the lawbooks.

-

Logic Error

[AvantLegion]

Charter....... good?

*head explodes*

How Charter kept RIAA away

[Skapare]

Hello and welcome to Charter Communications' legal support department. Your call is very important to us. Please listen to this menu carefully since options have changed. If you are calling about your lawsuit against us because your cable bill is too high, please press 1 now. If you are calling about your lawsuit against us because we double billed you, please press 2 now. If you are calling about your lawsuit against us because we have not paid your program provider fees, please press 3 now. If you are calling about your subpoena to divulge the names and credit card payment records of customers that are sharing music online please press 4 now. If you are calling about our violations of local ....

*** beep *** (pressed 4)

[click] [click] [pause] [click] [click]

Hello and welcome to Charter Communications' copyright enforcement department. Your call is very important to us. Please listen to this menu carefully since options have changed. If you are calling about your neighbor recording premium movies, please press 1 now. If you are calling about our customers that are downloading music on the internet, please press 2 now. If you are ....

*** beep *** (pressed 2)

[pause] [click] [click] [pause]

Hello and welcome to Charter Communications' music piracy department. Your call is very important to us. Please listen to this menu carefully since options have changed. If you are calling about a subpoena you have already sent to us, please have your subpoena registration number handy and press 1 now. If you are calling to register a new subpoena with use, please have the account number of the customer this subpoena refers to handy and press 2 now. If you are calling to obtain a customer account number, please have the name of the customer handy and press 3 now. If you are calling to obtain the name of a customer please have the IP address and time handy, and press 4 now. If you are ....

*** beep *** (pressed 4)

[pause] [click] [pause] [click] [pause]

Hello and welcome to the Charter Communications' online customer identification system. Please have the IP address and time the customer was online handy. If you already have an identification system authorization number, please press 1 now. If you do not already have an identification system authorization number, and wish to register to obtain one, please press 2 now. To repeat this ...

*** beep *** (pressed 2)

[pause] [click]

Hello and welcome to the Charter Communications' online customer identification system user authorization registration system. Please listen to this menu carefully since options have changed. If you are already a Charter Communications home cable customer, please press 1 now. If you are already a Charter Communications business internet customer, please press 2 now. If you are not a Charter Communications customer and would like to sign up for Charter Communications' cable service in your home or business today, please press 3 now. If you are not a Charter Communications customer and do not wish to sign up for cable service at this time, please press 4 now. To repeat ....

*** beep *** (pressed 4)

[click] [click]

Hello and welcome to Charter Communications' business relations department. Your call is very important to us. Please listen to this menu carefully since options have changed. If you are calling about an existing business relation that is satisfactory to you, please press 1 now. If you are calling about an existing business relation that is unsatisfactory to you, please press 2 now. If you are calling to establish a new business relationship, please have your business name and taxpayer identification number handy, and press 3 now. To repeat this ....

*** beep *** (pressed 3)

[pause] [click] [pause] [click] [pause] [click] [pause]

Hello and welcome to Charter Communications' business rel

Re:How Charter kept RIAA away

[LiquidCoooled]

:D dont ya just love technology ;)

Re:How Charter kept RIAA away

[Cyph]

Just out of curiousity, how long did it take you to write all that? :)

Re:How Charter kept RIAA away

[El Cubano]

Posts like this make me wish we had a (Score: 10, Wet My Pants) moderation. This without a doubt the funniest post I have read in the last year.

Re:How Charter kept RIAA away

[DocStoner]

Classic example of why we need to be able to moderate higher than 5. Even if they have to invent a different set of rules to to go over a 4.

How about a "Classic Posts" section of Slashdot?

Re:How Charter kept RIAA away

[kaellinn18]

I don't know which is more disturbing: the fact that someone took the time to write all of this, or the fact that I read it all...

SBC was fighting first

[ChaseTec]

Charter may be the first cable ISP to fight but SBC has been fighting already as shown:

here
here
and here

I'm confused...

[stubear]

Didn't people here want the RIAA to leave the P2P apps alone a couple years ago, instead saying they should go after the people violating copyrights? Now that they're doing that you very same people are suggesting that the RIAA be denied the right to protect its IP? Which way do you want it? Would you rather they go after the P2P apps again and possibly get even more restrictive internet legislation passed or they go after the people responsible for violating current copyright laws?

Re:I'm confused...

[shark72]

I remember that as well. And now, we're seeing bleatings of "they should be leaving this to the government and not filing civil suits."

What will the /. crowd say when the government goes after music pirates like they did the guy who put the Hulk film on the P2P networks?

Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

Re:I'm confused...

[shark72]

"I will not knowingly contribute to the RIAA if possible (CD-R TAX unavoidable. god the tax is bullshit when they are suing those fucks.)"

Those fucks? In the US, the music CD-R tariff largely goes to musicians, composers and performers, not the RIAA. RTFL. Musicians, composers and performers are the good guys. Not "those fucks."

Re:I'm confused...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Which way do you want it?

We want them going after people they aren't going after now, and stop going after people they are going after now.

Rinse and repeat.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuits

[rczyzewski]

I know the grandson of who this happened to. This link gives an accurate description of what really happened...

http://www.newsaic.com/ftvseinfeldindex.html

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuits

[c4seyj0nes]

I agree, the coffee lawsuit proved that McDonald's coffee was servered much much hotter then coffee should be served and thus much more dangerous. It was more then the fact that everyone should know that "coffee is hot" but the fact that everyone doesn't know that "McDonalds coffee is really freaking goddamn hotter then any rational person would serve coffee"

On the other hand, the "McDonalds food makes me fat" lawsuit is just a bunch of idiots trying to make some money.

Maybe it's just...

[MadAnthony02]

that a datum is like lay's potato chips... it's hard to have just one. So everyone has more then one datum, hence they have data.

Article lacks details...

[Zooka]

Has Charter made any statements as to *why* they are fighting it? What possible legal ground do they have to stand on? Unless they've come up with some ingenious angle that might acually win, I'm guessing they might just be doing this for the good PR of being a company that "cares about it's customers". ( IE - they might not even expect to win ) The article would be 10x more interesting if it told of Charter's motives. But perhaps Charter is keeping it hush-hush before it reaches court? ( which would make sense since they probably don't have a case to begin with... ) ... hmmm...

Happy Charter Customer

[bazabba]

I am glad to see this. I've been very happy with Charter overall. I use them for both Digital Cable and Internet services. They even recently boosted my downstream speed for free from 768kbps to 2mbps as an apology for any inconveniences (none) that I experience while they upgraded their systems. Thumbs up for Charter.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuits

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I live two blocks from the McDonald's that served the coffee in question. I have gotten coffee at that McDonald's plenty of times, and it was never unbearably hot.

Also, I've never seen this anywhere, but that McDonald's is on a very steep hill, and when you're coming away from that drive through, the parking lot goes downhill very fast. You don't open a cup of hot coffee sitting between your knees while driving down a steep hill. Isn't that common sense?

Charter is only doing it for the $$

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I mind them standing up to the RIAA but they realize that SOMEONE is going to have to go back thru all the logs to find out who was using what IP when the "piracy" allegedly happened. Since Charter uses DHCP to keep costs down they are NOT thrilled about having to provide the RIAA anything if Charter has to pay for it. But whatever the reason....YAY

They said cable company not ISP

[Mustang Matt]

If you read the actual article:

"We are the only major cable company that has not as yet provided the RIAA a single datum of information,"

Re:They are the same: 100% frivolous

[jedidiah]

Except that you are conveniently ignoring the facts:

- McDonald's is a big enough juggernaut to pretty much ignore what anyone wants.

- McDonald's keeps it's coffee hotter than industry standard.

- McDonald's actively suppressed information regardind the "very few (clumsy oafs).

This last point is grounds enough to string up the McDonald's board by it's testicles. Unfortunately, that method of remediation is not open to us.

Re:Cooperate ... within the legal process ...

[xclr8r]

This is just a guess so dont mess with my Karma but....
I don't think smart had anything to do with the "change of heart."

Some Jack Off at the RIAA probably pushed too far demanding some information right here - right now, pi**ed off an executive at Charter and the executive started to ask him/herself what the he** am I bending backwards for.

~My other operating system is a Linux Distribution
;rem my screen saver at work

Re:Charter Communications?

[hendridm]

Doesn't sound like the same Charter I know. Perhaps the problem is being in Wisconsin :P

I've had their service the last *three places I've lived*. Between transfer rates that approached dialup speeds to massive service outages, I was happy when SBC was available in my current apartment.

Charter ALWAYS had an excuse. Bad wiring, bad neighborhood, construction, too many devices on one line, blah blah blah. Well, SBC seems to have no problem getting DSL, which is notorious for being picky, to my house trouble free and 100% reliable. Regardless of whose fault it is, SBC doesn't make excuses (I can't believe I'm actually in favor of the telephone company. I never though this day would come!)

In their defense, my parents have Time Warner cable modem, which has a fair amount of outages as well, which is why I think the problem lies within the technology itself. My sister-in-law and I both have SBC DSL on different sides of the state, and it has been flawless.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuits

[tenton]

It wasn't even about the fact that the coffee was way hotter that it should have been.

IIRC, McDonald's was shown to have been negligent; people have been complaining about it for years before and they never consulted a burn expert, or even took any type of action (outside of just paying out some damages to people).

Re: Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuits

[bezuwork's friend]

Reading all the descendant posts to the parent, two things struck me.

(1) I will probably get modded down for this, but here goes. Regarding the 'fast food made me fat' suits, I happen to be taking a course from one of the major attorneys pushing this field. He apparently was a also major player in the early part of the tobacco suits as well. He uses these frivolous-seeming suits, as well as media attention, to try and further public issues.

Taken one by one, suits such as the "McDonald's made me obiese" suits certainly appear frivolous and laughable, but they're not going to stop. It took decades of suits against the Tobacco industry before the government got involved and the industry settled. Something like this will probably happen to the fast food chains - either the government will get involved with regulation or something or the industry will pre-emptively change. Either way, the public interest, in the view of these lawyers at least, will have been served.

You may not agree with their goals, I don't always, either. At the bottom, these suits are just another tool for change.

(2) Regarding the hot coffee suit. I'm curious that more attention isn't given to the cups themeselves. Sometimes cups and lids are difficult to put together, the lid was not put on right, or the lid is looser than they should be. Perhaps part of the problem originated there.

Like using an atombomb to assasinate the president

[MacFury]

Would you rather they go after the P2P apps again and possibly get even more restrictive internet legislation passed or they go after the people responsible for violating current copyright laws?

We would rather not have them attacking and devestating the lives of innocent people. If someone is sharing massive ammounts of files, fine, throw him in jail and let him get analy raped, contract AIDs and learn how to be an effective criminal, all the while draining my tax dollars. Copyright infringers deserve it!

Don't they?

Re: Complaints that McDonalds lowered temperature?

[ShimmyShimmy]

Well, before you ridicule people for wanting hazardous coffee, you have to respect two very universal points. 1. People are inherently not very smart. 2. The customer is always right. Keep in mind that McDonalds is a business, not a eutopia-type of institution. They are just trying to make a profit. I would like to Address [1] and [2]. [1] says that people like stuff that harms them in some way or another (ie cigarettes, alcohol, barely-sub-boiling coffee that burns you), but that they still want it anyway. [2] says that people buy what they want, and that companies essentially have to respond to consumer requests or be doomed to failure. I mean, if someone adamantly insists on getting a SCUBA oxygen tank with air holes in it, you won't get far by explaining to them how stupid they are, just sell the damn thing to them. So, when people like hot coffee, don't argue with them. Just make their damn coffee. The coffee is obviously hot... I don't think you could get by without seeing some sort of warning that the coffee is hot. If you think the coffee is too hot you don't have to buy it, but don't go trying to proclaim to the world that it shouldn't be hot. Maybe I ate something nasty and I can't get the taste out of my mouth and I want to burn my taste buds away, I don't know. Maybe I have a nasty pimple on my face and I want to just burn it off with hot coffe...... or maybe I'm not stupid and suicidal and I just want to stop for a quick cup of coffee then have it still be hot when I start drinking it at work 20 minutes later. The bottom line: Simple Demand should ultimately determine the price of the cofee... just give people what they want. If you are lucky enough to get the 1 in 24 million cups of coffee that spill, boo freakin hoo maybe you should have thought of that before you dumped the hot coffee all over yourself, because essentially a 1 in 24,000,000 chance is not what the average person would consider "hazardous".

I wonder why...?

[Nom du Keyboard]

So far, the group has filed suits against 261 people, none of them in the St. Louis area.

I wonder why...? [grin]

Re: Complaints that McDonalds lowered temperature?

[Uart]

OK, and if the customer wants to buy hot coffee to spill on someone else? Should they meet that demand too?

Re:How Charter kept RIAA away +6 FUNNY!

[Nom du Keyboard]

This deserves modded to +6.

Re:Is Charter Microsoft?

[0x0d0a]

Ultimately, Microsoft executives do a pretty good job of making money for their companies. If this hit Paul Allen's radar, he probably just considered resisting handing over information to be a good business move.

Is this the same Charter Communications...

[C A S S I E L]

...who have so many spammers that they're now in the SpamHaus database, and whose spammers have been joe-jobbing my domain (from numerous charter.com and charter.net connections) for the last month, and whose sysadmins competely ignore my complaints? Just checking...

Ok, what are the moderators smoking today?

[CrystalFalcon]

How did this get modded "Informative"? An enjoyable read for sure, but "Informative"? :-) :-)

More interesting moderation

[CrystalFalcon]

This is probably the first post EVER that I see that has a moderation of (5, Troll).

Re:If copyright were abolished...

[bubbazanetti]

Another Troll...

Re:Lies

[emilymildew]

Let me get this straight - not only do you know what millions of people like, but you also happen to know how hot that specific McDonald's served its coffee that specific morning that the woman spilled it?

Quit wasting your time on /., dude, you're obviously too smart for the rest of us.

[LINK] CLICK HERE [/LINK] (OT)

[radoni]

i think you need a spanking for linking to the word "this"

a large, wet, spanking and yes with the towel of blinking justice.

anywho, charter sucks, it's been going on for years. the difference i see is that charter is being run like a business (protecting clients), though other cable providers are dividing up the customer info. why divy up the info? because the other company cable service providers are run like a short-term high priority scam. get us our money, bring in 800 new subscribers a week, cash in your bonus. man the support lines. the cash cow there is working, but at a competitive rate that will rake in the money. 2mbit connections for regular price? hello charter! protecting your clients? hooray.

charter still sucks.

as linux sucks.

i would say that it just sucks less than alternatives, to those of you who suddenly burn a candle at night around the newly-constructed anti-RIAA/MPAA altar of charter worship.

blow out your candles, and please, please refrain from the click-here syndrome i'd hoped a legitimate poster would find the self-control enough to avoid.

what's the opposite of fnord anyways?

Happy too ... FYI - ulterior motive on speed

[SetiAlphaOne]

I am pleased to see another company stand up for its customers.

OT -- FYI:
Charter upped everyone's speed to 2mbps except the lowest rung of service and eliminated everything between. Check out their new package structure on their website.

The ulterior motive? SBC, Verizon, et. al. are lowering the cost of DSL. The cable companies are upping their bandwidth instead of lowering prices in hopes of competing. There was an article on it last week. Comcast is offering 3mbps, Charter only went up to 2...

The cable providers don't want to lower their costs, and the phone companies can't compete on bandwidth because of the limitations on DSL related to distance from COs, etc., etc... so it comes down to whether you want blazing speed or affordable high speed, and of course the ongoing drama of what is available where...

Class Action?

[phorm]

Can corps get together to form something alike to a class-action suit?

I mean, granted most of these companies are competing, but in "the enemy of my enemy is a friend," perhaps they could at least agree that the RIAA is mutally bad for business. At the least, they could probably create some 3rd-party organization of which they are all members, pool resources, and fun some lawyers to send the RIAA back where they belong.

Re:Few complaints

[KlomDark]

No, their coffee was, and still is, too damn hot. I haven't bought coffee from them for years, way before the lawsuit even. I want to buy my coffee and drink it completely before getting to work. From McDonalds I have to bring it to work and let it cool down for what seems like hours before it's drinkable. Whatever they use for their thin foam cups should be used on the space shuttle, it doesn't seem to let any heat out.

Why do CD's cost more?

[jbarr]

Or consider this example:
"Hair" DVD - Dolby Digital 5.1
Amazon.com: MSRP $12.99 (US)

"Hair" CD - Soundtrack
Amazon.com: MSRP $17.98 (US)

Doesn't make sense!

Re:Why do CD's cost more?

[ShavenYak]

One possibility is that the film industry has already made money on the movie before the DVD is even released.

not just stupidity

[pixel fairy]

someone could break into your machine and share from it, someone could break your wep encryption and share from your network. so you put access controls on your router, but someone could compramise your router. i have a feeling a jury would side with the defendant.

Re:MOD PARENT UP, factually correct.

[ModsOnCrack]

Mod parent up, factually correct.

Fair enough.

Mod grandparent down, factually incorrect.

Ha! Ha, I say!

Dreeeeeeeamer.... you're nothin but a dreeeeeeamer. Well can you make the mods use their heads? Oh no!

Re:Yeah, superman

[fishbowl]

>Yeah, superman. With the super-speed, you are
>able to get this done if you spend 25 hours a
>day on it?

I know people who do it (grow a substantial amount of their own food.) Including a frequent poster on slashdot who grows all kinds of grain and makes flour and cereal. It's not that big a deal.

I left off "making your own clothes".

A generation ago, everybody in my family made their own clothes. The best tailored suit I ever had was made by my mother. And it was not at all uncommon for families to be this way. My "generation ago" is the people who were teenagers during WWII, in case you are wondering.

Also a generation ago, everybody in my family farmed. Also not at all uncommon.

What's so "superman" about doing something that my grandparents had no problem doing?

Re:Planned Parenthood

[Loconut1389]

Hardly seems offtopic. My point was that they are requesting information way out of their rights. And in the case i mentioned, they were denied the rights to those names, as they should be, and so should RIAA.