Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Sued For Giving Customer Info to RIAA
maczealot writes "The first legal missile has been fired at ISP collaboration. Comcast, the top U.S. cable TV network operator, is being sued by a Seattle-area woman for disclosing her name and contact information, court records showed Thursday." From the article: "...no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its customers, or notified his client that her information had been given to an outside party..."
When you play with the devil... you will get burned. So let this be a lesson for handing your customer's data over to the RIAA thugs.
On a lighter note, looks like the RIAA has really stream lined the process of putting the screws to the customer. Honestly, you can't get any faster then straight to debt collection agency! Looks like due process was really slowing down their efforts, but now that it has been nixed from the check list they are free to pursue their interests without that peksy court system in their way.
Too bad I can't just go around and asking debt collection agencies to gather up money for me. I'm sure someone would disagree with me if I randomly decided some poor bastard off the street owed me $3000 or face a very long trial attempting to prove that I don't.
Yee gads! I wonder if I can patent this as a business methodology?
Ominous...
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Depending on the TOS she agreed to, they might not have needed anything from a judge. Do I think it's criminal to release that information without a warrant, sure. But I've seen stranger things in TOS's and EULAs before.
It's the sound of a thousand TOS agreements being rewritten in every ISP/broadband provider across the country.
"Well you agreed to it when you clicked "yes" on that 400k text file."
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
1) Where is the EFF? They need to be in on this.
2) Is there a place to donate directly to her legal expenses?
Let's get together on this one everyone - this one is important.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm curious as to why an ISP would even be compelled to do such a thing. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the courts have ruled that ISP's are not responsible for the actions of their customers. It would seem that Comcast would have no interest either way...so why would Comcast bend customers over like this? Is it worth losing a $49 monthly fee from each customer who leaves because of this?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Nice troll.
"Crimes" get reported to Law Enforcement. Contrary to what they, and apparently you, beleive, the Asses of America are NOT Law Enforcement agencies.
"Home address" is still personal information.
If they want to turn the info over to the cops because she's committing a crime, fine. That's their job.
*AA is not Law Enforcement.
Hello Mr AC,
Could you please provide evidence that this woman committed copyright infringement.
Yours,
Another AC
If this case goes against Comcast, then other ISPs will get intimidated. That'll be bad for RIAA. So, maybe, RIAA might demand an unreasonably high amount from that woman (for downloading copyrighted music, RTFA) or sue her pants off, so that she can't go ahead with the comcast case. Maybe even ask her to "settle" so that they'll drop anything they have against here if she drops the comcast case.
How could they bill her for products or services she didn't obtain from them?
If I go to my local record store, and they give me free copies of albums they've illegally replicated, the RIAA is gonna bill ME?
They need to go after the illegal distributor, not the end user.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Don't forget the point here people.... I didn't read anything in the article about her getting off from the lawsuit with the RIAA. I think she has a right to sue Comcast for giving out her personal information to ANYONE, let alone someone that wants to use that information to sue her. While the article seems to focus on the fact that it was the RIAA, it could have been anyone/any company.
This is not intended to be flamebait, but I'm not sure that the RIAA is guilty of any wrong doing. They asked for her info and Comcast gave it up. While I don't how that will affect the case that the RIAA has against her, if the facts in the article are indeed true, it seems only fair that she receive some restitution from Comcast. If that ends up being the case and I were her, I would pay off the RIAA and end the ordeal. In the end, she will most likely come out ahead ($$) from this whole debacle.
Ok, dont get a political flameware started. Quite frankly im pissed off with everything became a redstate bluestate thing. we're ALL americans, no matter what state we're from, and no matter our political affiliation. And where are the libertarian states?
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
The question I want to know is...
How did the RIAA know she had downloaded said files?
IANAL. TINLA.
If she downloaded them from an RIAA agent, the agent, by making them available to her, also gave permission on behalf of the RIAA to download them... so they are legal copies. (estoppel prevents the RIAA from suddenly deciding they are now illegal copies)
If she *didn't* download them from an RIAA agent, then the RIAA must have been tapping her wires... an illegal act in and of itself because the RIAA is not law enforcement and cannot serve warrants. If this is the case, it is illegally and improperly collected evidence and will not be permissible in court.
A third question... if an agent of the RIAA downloads a copy from you (i.e., you're uploading), did they not authorize the new copy in the first place (see objection #1)? If they don't download the copy, can they be sure the file name is analagous to the actual song? And to download the copy, their agent has to approve the creation of the download (by starting it) and therefore the upload to the agent becomes legal.
Seriously... I cannot for the life of me figure out how the RIAA collects evidence that will actually get into court... either the RIAA agent has authorized a copy to be made (and so the copying is not illegal) or the RIAA has used illegal methods to wiretap a computer (and therefore the evidence is inadmissable). In the first case, you have no case because there is no crime; in the second, you have no case because there is no court-admissable evidence.
Could someone please enlighten me?
In America, from the horror stories ive heard, it would seem people sue for the sake of it, regardless if they dont have a decent case - in the hope they`ll get an out of court settlement.
Now, i dont live there so i cant be sure, but ive a feeling thats how things are over there.
The rise of the 'compensation culture' deeply troubles me, with the frivolous lawsuits which are flying about, in the face of things such as common sense.
Even if they found out it was come from her IP... what proof do they have that "SHE" downloaded the stuff?
Let me make up a quick defense or two here...
"I had an open wireless access point, someone else must've been stealing my bandwidth."
"There's a trojan on my computer, I didn't download that stuff, I don't know how it got on there."
They didn't even seize her computer, they don't even have proof of it being on her hard drive, so how the hell can they make a claim against her?
If I leave my car in my driveway, and someone steals it and kills someone, since when am "I" the one who's charged with murder? This is news to me, and I think I need to leave the country if that's how it really works.
Or better yet, if someone cuts my brake lines, and I hit another car, that's "MY" fault? Apparently the RIAA decided there are no longer laws in this country... I'm pretty sure their are still one or two though, and that their case has about as good of a chance standing up in court as a piece of tissue paper has of replacing the hoover dam.
**Note I only feel confident posting this because I am *NOT* on comcast. I'm sure the RIAA would be sending me a bill/collection agency for "defamation of character" if I were.
> "MP3 is lossy compression - my copies are not copies but derivative works"
Every copy of anything macroscopic is a degraded version. It's hard to imagine a court ruling that copyright law doesn't apply because your xerox copy of someone's book was smudged or otherwise imperfect.
Where is the EFF? They need to be in on this.
Yeah, the EFF needs to stand up for our right to download these companies' movies, music, software, etc for free!
While we are at it, they also need to do more in terms of fighting for the spammer's right to free speech and to bypass our spam filters!
Well, the thing is, is this: If they don't have a decent case, it gets thrown out by the judge.
Which is why all those "crazy lawsuit" stories you hear from time to time don't contain much detail -- when you find out the old lady that won a lawsuit against McDonalds for their coffee being too hot had suffered third degree burns and required skin grafts to her lap, and that McDonalds had ignored many similar injuries before hers, and had refused flat-out to help with her medical bills or even just shell out the measly cash to replace their ancient coffee makers with newer, cooler ones... Well, suddenly her lawsuit doesn't seem too "crazy" or "frivolous" anymore, which defeats the purpose that the story-teller had in mind when he left out all those parts.
There's a strong anti-lawsuit faction in the U.S. which takes every opporunity to distort and magnify the "problem" in hopes of getting laws passed to eliminate all liability suits, so that large businesses can no longer be held accountable. This faction is mostly made up of said large businesses, and their flunkies in the media.
Incidentally, though McDonalds lost that suit, and with good reason, they refused to pay the penalty the court decided upon and offered her a much smaller payment. She accepted rather than go back to court -- a lawsuit wasn't even her first choice anyway.
Not ture. Many many countries do not use legal systems based on precedent. They have law books no bigger than any other. Precedent rquires that you study huge volumes of case law. The countries with precedent tend to be anglo-saxon in origin. Those without are based on Roman type legal system. (I know this is a generalisation..please do not start a thread!)
Your comment about specificaly worded law is crap.
law book in "Roman" system: You can not divulge private information without consent, unless comanded by a warrant from a judge!
Law book plus case law in anglo-saxon system: You can not divulge private information without consent, unless comanded by a warrant from a judge!
But in "mrsev vs. universe, in 2005" It was decided that your IP address and real address are not private information.
But in "EZsue vs. John Paul II, in 1955" It was decided that your street address is private information unless held in public directory.
But, mlud, "EZsue vs. John Paul" was ruled not to apply to north facing appartments in sub-tropical regions on the firt tuesday of the lunar month."
but....
but but but.
But..
Im not making judgments about the two systems but dont pretend that "Roman" law is worse than the US system. At least with Roman law you can know what a law actually is!!!!
What interest would Comcast have in giving away personal customer info to a debt collector? It's bad publicity and what could Comcast possibly gain?
Verizon, for example, fought the RIAA even when they had court subpoenas, RIAA v Verizon. So I have trouble believing that Comcast is going to violate a user's privacy and perhaps drive customers to Verizon, a competitor. Something is not right here. Perhaps Comcast gave away this user's info by mistake?
Remember that anyone can sue any person or business over anything they want. That's the easy part. Those of you crowing about justice being served should wait and see. Depending on the agreements that the subscriber signed when she joined the ISP, this case could be dismissed on Monday.
Ianal.
Like many defense arguments amounting to semantics, the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on for this. If P2P networks, are, as they claim, only used to transfer illegal files anyway, the moment they "set up shop" on a P2P network, there's implied consent. They are advertising the presence of their files.
This is the same as the RIAA having links to their audio files on a website, for the public to see, saying "click here to download!" (With not so much as an click-through license.)
They are offering the files in what amounts to an opt-in, free-for-all network. When a file is requested, they give it. This isn't cybercrime, and it isn't misusing the offer of the file.
Congress disagrees.
They passed a law in the 80's to specifically state that it was OK to make mixtapes for your friends. Their reasoning was that a) the person making the mixtape had paid for the music in the first place and b) cassettes weren't exact copies of the original, that people could make tapes for their friends. This law being passed was the only reason music-oriented casette recorders (as opposed to voice-oriented casette recorers) ever became legal to own in the US. For many years, they weren't - and I'm old enough to remember it.
So, Mr-know-it-all-AC, since I paid for my 300+ CD collection, and mp3's are lossy (read: not exact) copies, am I allowed to share them with 10 friends on the net? 20? How many friends am I allowed to have and make the equivalent of digital mixtapes for, of stuff I bought with my own money? Remember, mp3's are lossy compression and nowhere near as high quality as the original PCM streams. They're not exact copies. And "not exact copies" is exactly what Congress passed a LAW to protect our ability to make, and share with our friends.
And what started all the controversy, you ask? Funny thing - it was the fucking RIAA running around like fucking Chicken Little screaming that the fucking sky was falling and that they'd all be bankrupt in six days and all the recording artists would fucking starve and it would be the end of western fucking civilization! Sound just a little bit familiar?!
But gee, the RIAA is still around. In fact, now that I think about it, the RIAA made fucking SHIT TONS of cash off of selling cassettes - once they had been forced by the marketplace into accepting a new distribution mechanism.
I'm getting SO tired of repeating myself over and over and over because all you twenty-something self-righteous oh-look-I'm-a-good-corpofascist little twerps have absolutely ZERO sense of history!
They will never stop until somebody makes the
... the exact amount of the most recent payment on the account.
Wow, that keyspace is huge. The universe would die of heat death with countless light years between individual atoms before a third party would ever be able to guess how much you paid on your bill last month, unless perhaps they rooted through your garbage the previous month or happened to also be a Comcast customer.
The RIAA can seemingly sue you without proof. The fact you cannot afford to pay a solicitor to defend yourself means they win? How's that?
If it happens to me, I will refuse to pay and countersue under criminal law (fraudulent misrepresentation should work) and if necessary get a jury appearance.
If the worth of the downloaded material is more than $5000 in the US it's a criminal case, yes? So why is it still a civil matter?
Standard "IANAL but I work with them" disclaimers apply.
First, this is a policy and not a contract. If it were in a contract, they would have to include a way for the customer to escape. Probably in the form of: "We'll send an email to the address on file, which you agree to keep current. If you keep using the service after that date, we'll assume you agree. If you don't get the email message for whatever reason, it's not our fault, we sent it."
It does *NOT* mean, as you suggested, "we can change the entire meaning of this thing on a whim, do whatever we want, and there's nothing you can do about it."
It is normal legal boilerplate with a fairly simple meaning.
Generally speaking, that boilerplate lets them make small wording changes and minor meaning changes that don't change the overall spirit of the document.
To say they will "revise from time to time" is simply a standard legal expression saying they don't know how frequently they will update it. It is generally interpreted to mean a relatively long while, and as a stable thing. It also normally means that it will only be minor revisions. Revising their policy to do be the exact opposite of what it used to be is not really a revision, more of a replacement.
To say that they won't be notifying custmers is also a standard legal expression so they don't have to notify every customer, and possibly get acceptance from every customer, any time they modified their policies. Even if it was as simple as changing a typo, they'd have to notify their entire customer base, possibly through a paper mailing.
Major changes, or things that do affect the overall spirit of the document, will still generally need to be sent out to the customers unless they want to be sued.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement