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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
I'm going to respond to you AC because you've illustrated my point the best.
This is not about what you download.
This is about your ISP divulging personal info about you and about what you do online.
The lady in question did not sue the RIAA, nor dispute the charge. Her two teenage kids probably did do exactly what they are accused of. Nowhere in the article does she say she is going to contest that.
What she has a problem with (and she should) is her ISP giving her personal and private info to a non-legal body. Despite the noise they make, the RIAA is nothing more than a business consortium. they are not, repeat, not the cops.
To put it another way, what if Pepsico or Johnson & Johnson demanded her info? Still okay with that?
So rather than whine about the erosion of our rights and the ability of modern business to crush the individual - here we have an opportunity to set a precedent. So let's do exactly that. While we still can.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.