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..."

Comments

Poor Comcast

[Cylix]

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...

Re:Poor Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if I can patent this as a business methodology?

Sure you can, but then you'll get sued by the RIAA because they hold prior art... : p

Re:Poor Comcast

[Andr0s]

Hmm. I am not a Comcast customer, but I might have a look at their TOS and EULA, purely out of curiosity... Even though this comment might invoke snickers and snorts (from me, as well as from others), I was under impression that USA Courts took privacy issues quite seriously.

Thus, unless Comcast's EULA/TOS clearly and specifically states that Company doesn't find itself obligated to protect its customer's privacy rights (which could easily bring them to their knees, because it'd open door for a myriad of 'naughty things' such as mail reading, web site visit logging and other privacy-invasive actions), the abovementioned action on Comcast's part, of giving out customer information to another company (Last I checked, RIAA wasn't US Government agency with power to demand such information outside proper court channels) is in blatant and violent offense of privacy laws & rights - which again, doesn't bode too well for them.

Bottom line, unless Comcast simply buys off the plaintiff with an out-of-court settlement, this could be grizzly...

Re:Poor Comcast

[superpulpsicle]

Well if RIAA was smart, they'd really go the distance and research the hell out of the candidates before sueing them.

- Rich or at least well off
- non technical
- old enough
- Doesn't work at a computer type company with any major contacts
- Not knowledgable about laws

Re:Poor Comcast

[XorNand]

IANAL, but something doesn't quite sound right here. Debt collection agencies typically outright buy someone else's contract at a discount. If I owed $10k to my credit card company and stopped paying my bill, they might sell my account to a collection agency for half that much so they don't have to deal with it. Now, if the collection agency is unable to collect a dime from me, they're out $5k unless they opt to sue me and can collect that way.

What I don't get is why a collection agency would buy this "debt". There is no contract between the RIAA and the woman. How can they possibly expect to collect? If they sue, what basis do they have? Either this story has some facts wrong, or the RIAA offered a very steep discount to the collection agency. If the later case, this really, really concerns me. Now the RIAA can collect money without even having to incur legal expenses!

Re:Poor Comcast

[sqlrob]

- Alive

Re:Poor Comcast

[Andr0s]

- Rich or at least well off
- non technical
- old enough
- Doesn't work at a computer type company with any major contacts
- Not knowledgable about laws

Umm... that -definitely- doesn't sound like a music pirate profile to me.

Rich? Buy original CDs, or better yet Vynyl.
Non-technical? Not too likely to posess enough 'net-savyness to download loads of mp3s or divxes...
Old? Not enough interest for tons of net-floated MP3s...
Doesn't work at computer type company - how is this relevant?
Not knowledgeable about laws? Rich, but stupid and without good lawyers?

LOL.

Re:Poor Comcast

[uberdave]

You expressly authorize Comcast and its suppliers to cooperate with (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected legal violations, and (ii) and system administrators at other Internet service providers or other network or computing facilities in order to enforce this Policy. This cooperation may include Comcast providing available personally identifiable information about you to law enforcement or system administrators, including, but not limited to, username, subscriber name, and other account information.

Sounds like the subscriber doesn't have a chance, once the copyright cops get involved.

Re:Poor Comcast

[technothrasher]

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.

You can, and in fact companies do this all the time. I've had it done to me on several occasions. But the collection agencies are all bark and no bite (unless, of course, they've really got a solid claim against you, that's a different story.) All you have to do is just send the collection agency a nice certified letter back demanding all of their detailed records showing how they have a valid claim against you within 30 days so that you can begin your lawsuit against them, and they back right off. More info from the FTC

Re:Poor Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Reread clause ii.

Comcast is allowed to cooperate with "system administrators at other Internet Service Providers or other network or computing facilities."

That != "anyone who asks." I would argue that the RIAA does not meet this qualification. This clause is to allow them to deal with people who spam, threaten, harass, or otherwise harm others in dealing with a complaint. It's specifically tailored to responding to sysadmins and other computing professionals. Not someone involved in a business dispute.

Second issue with this clause in general "You expressly authorize Comcast to cooperate....in order to enforce this policy." Again, this isn't a blanket license--there is the need to show that the activity in question violates some OTHER aspect of Comcasts' TOS. Granted, this may be open and shut if the TOS expressly prohibit viewing copyrighted material, but that's not a clean win either.

Re:Poor Comcast

[Talondel]

You expressly authorize Comcast and its suppliers to cooperate with (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected legal violations, and (ii) and system administrators at other Internet service providers or other network or computing facilities I fail to see how this clause is pertinent to this law suit in any way. The RIAA is neither an internet service provider, nor a law enforcement agency (no matter how much they want to be).

Re:Poor Comcast

[blckbllr]

This probably won't be seen by anyone but...

This is a complete misstatment of the law. For a definition of "prior art," please see 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

If person A recieves a patent, person A cannot be sued by person B because person B holds "prior art." Rather, person B can attempt to have the patent held by person A held invalid through a declaratory judgment.

-BB

Re:Poor Comcast

[iamwahoo2]

According to the article, in this occurence "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"

Re:Poor Comcast

[enosys]

The "collection agency" is called Settlement Support Center. I thought that was an unusual name and wondered if it is a company set up for the RIAA lawsuits. I guess it is and it has a bunch of lawyers which can pursue lawsuits if someone doesn't pay.

Re:Poor Comcast

[HAKdragon]

Hmm. I am not a Comcast customer...

I know you're not a Comcast customer because you're online instead of suffering with their randomm DNS outages /rant of a fustrated Comcast customer.

It all depends

[mwsmith824]

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.

Re:It all depends

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Well, car rental companies kept writing into their service agreements the right to track you via GPS and fine you for speeding, but courts have repeatedly ruled against the rental companies. You can't enforce an unconscionable contract.

You hear that?

[nightsweat]

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."

Ok everyone, two things and quick!

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Ok everyone, two things and quick!

[Loether]

I agree! Come on people let's help her out! I'm willing to forward the money I recieve on to her. Make all checks payable to cash or just email me the amount you would like to donate and your credit card numbers.

What's in it for Comcast?

[d2_m_viant]

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?

Re:What's in it for Comcast?

[ignipotentis]

Is it worth losing a $49 monthly fee from each customer who leaves because of this?

You haven't spent much time speaking with comcast's customer service... have you?

Oh well, they are a corporation. They have A LOT of customers. They do NOT care about the few geeks who will leave due to some idealistic reasoning. I agree with you, they should see this as bad. Howerver, I'm sad to say that they don't.

Interesting turn...

[vidarlo]

I suspect that ISP's have handed over personal data in a lot of cases, without court order. That is probably a break of their own TOS. But, the only thing that will happend, is that every damn ISP adds a clause to their TOS saying that they're free to do whatever they want with your information, including giving your address to a known spammer...

Thank god for america...

[racecarj]

Where one lawsuit can easily cancel out another.

Deja Vu

[BrynM]

Dawnell Leadbetter said that she was contacted by a debt collection agency in January and told to pay a $4,500 for downloading copyright-protected music or face a lawsuit for hundreds of thousands of dollars

I know I've heard of something like this before... There's a word for it... Never given a chance to exonerate herself of the "charges". From acusation to credit damaging collection agency without even a notification... Threat making folks plying her with further threats... Oh yeah:

extort - verb
obtain by coercion or intimidation; "They extorted money from the executive by threatening to reveal his past to the company boss"; "They squeezed money from the owner of the business by threatening him"

Re:Deja Vu

[kfg]

You cannot legally "threaten" someone with the specter of legal adjudication, since legal adjudication is the proper and legal civil means of resolving a dispute.

In fact, the "threat" of a lawsuit is a virtually necessary step in bringing a case, since the potential defendant must be given reasonable opportunity to settle the dispute prior to a filing.

Your credit card company cannot sue you for your bill. They have to present it to you first, then you have to fail to pay it within the specified, and reasonable, time, then they have to notify you of your failure to comply with terms and "threaten" legal action if you do not pay.

If you still do not pay, then they may sue you. Suits are not supposed to "come out of the blue."

Redress of grievance through the courts is a right, and the process is one of impartial adjudication of liability. Where is the "threat" in impartial legal judgment?

The courts want lawsuits to be threatened, because they'd rather you looked at your credit card company's lawyers and think "Oh, shit, I better just pay what I owe, huh?" instead of making every $10 debt into a court case. Even after a suit is filed the courts will do everything they can not to hear the case and get the parties to settle before trial.

Of course you and I know where the real threat lies, in the crippling expense of showing that you don't owe anything, assuming you don't, but the law cannot make that assumption, since its role is in making that determination in the first place, no?

So do you think the RIAA should just sue her and then make the threats, after she's already deep in the system and deep in debt to a lawyer?

Of course we know this person has no contractual debt up front, the supposed monies owed coming from a violation of law and not from contractual agreement. So, to date, there is no actual "debt" in the legal sense. That would only occur through adjudication and a judgement, or a future contractual agreement to acknowledge the debt, which is what is being sought.

Note that the suit filed by Dawnell Leadbetter is against Comcast, not the RIAA or the "debt collection agency" (i.e. "Law Firm." Who woulda thunk that law firms threaten law suits? It boggles the mind.)

She was ratted out. She's going after the ratter, quite possibly in hopes of getting enough money to pay the $4500 which she knows she's going to have to pay, because she knows she violated the law (which doesn't at all mean that the RIAA are not fucking bastards. Don't get me wrong on that point. See my yesterday's post on using copyright to control the distribution channel).

Comcast squealed when they were under no obligation to do so, let Comcast pay her tab.

Frankly I hope the ploy works, so that ISPs all over the land will start saying "Not without a fucking warrant you don't."

KFG

Re:phew . .

[geminidomino]

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.

Comcast knows its customers?

[standards]

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.

That's funny... given Comcast's poor reliability this week, I find it shocking that she'd be able to upload or download anything.

Can I say "So What?" now?

[Mad_Rain]

Uhm, not to rain on the parade right now, but the suit just got filed. No one has won (or lost) yet. So all of this is just speculation...

If we're speculating, and this woman wins her fight against Comcast revealing her information to the RIAA, that means a victory for privacy advocates? Does it mean that Comcast loses, and has to foot her fine to the RIAA? Or does it means the RIAA loses the ability to sue her?

If Comcast wins, what does that mean? Does this mean they are legally liable to know and track ALL of their users, and know what they are doing 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Does that mean they have to start handing over music-swappers to the RIAA, movie-watchers to the MPAA, kiddie-porn people to the FBI, tax-fraudsters to the IRS, etc?

Fined for downloading?

[almostmanda]

Dawnell Leadbetter said that she was contacted by a debt collection agency in January and told to pay a $4,500 for downloading copyright-protected music or face a lawsuit for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Wait, what? She was given a bill for simply downloading (not SHARING) music? And she was told "pay us NOW or we will litigate you into oblivion" ? So, the company flat out said "the value of this music is $X, but if we take you to court it will become $Y" ? Call me crazy, but something about this story doesn't add up.

Re:Fined for downloading?

[Anonymous Coward]

Statutory damages. What she is liable for is not the same as the value of the item taken.

There's at least some logic here--if you shoplift a CD from a music store and get caught, do you think all you have to do is pay what the CD would have cost and you're home free? That implies there's no penalty for theft, which isn't the best of systems. Hence the concept that intentionally stealing an item of value has the potential to cost more than the actual value of the item.

This is the big hammer that the **AA is swinging against downloaders these days.

What puzzles me is that all of a sudden she got a bill from a COLLECTION AGENCY. Huh? I was under the impression that debts could not be placed for collection until the debtor was notified of the debt, given the opportunity to contest the debt, and be notified that the debt was going to be placed for collection.

I didn't think the "Proceed directly to the collection agency. Do not pass go. Do not make any attempt to collect $4,500." was a kosher process for handling a debt (even a disputed one).

Re:Fined for downloading?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Fined for downloading?

[Qzukk]

You forgot the third option, that she was using a system like bittorrent where her activity in downloading the file was publically broadcast, and could easily be tracked using the tracker (well, what else would you call it? ;) without approving or otherwise participating in the transfer, or tapping her wires or anything.

Re:And when she's found guilty...

[geminidomino]

"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.

It's been said before, but...

[Valiss]

"I don't get it. We sue the fuck out of our customers and they STILL won't buy our products."

RIAA might come in

[northcat]

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.

I think I have a new business model

[Darth Muffin]

Yee gads! I wonder if I can patent this as a business methodology?

1. Open my own "collection agency"
2. Find name/address of random broadband user, preferably one with under-18 children. Maybe I can find some random comcast IPs and then ask them for the personal info.
3. Send them a bill from the "collection agency" for the "settlement" for the copyrighted material they have downloaded (I challenge you to find a household fitting step #2 that can prove they haven't downloaded anything copyrighted, ever) under threat of lawsuit.
4. Profit!

There must be more to this story...

[n6kuy]

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.

expand your "music" tastes

[adbudha kusu]

Doesn't rest of the world have decent music to offer? So listen to that for the next few years. I recommend U Srinivas renderings. Boycott RIAA/MPAA backed offerings and maybe someone more humane will take their place after they go extinct.

Stay focused...

[Krypto420]

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.

From Comcast Service Depart:

[OldManCoyote]

I called the Comcast service department (1-800-Comcast) and ask about this story. They have denied ever hearing about it, but they did mention I could be put on a non disclose list (which I then added myself to). They are also sending me their contract and policy concerning disclosing my personal information to any outside 3rd parties. Lets all call and crack the whip!

Re:From Comcast Service Depart:

[Admiral Ackbar 8]

I called and told the lady on the phone what site to look at for the story. She gave me legal's number: 886.281.2100. She also said something that was quite scary, she said that they "contracted" with that company (read: RIAA), and that the woman in question was doing something illegal (against that company). That is why they turned the information over. Cost be damned, Speakesy here I come.

Straight from their TOS...

[gosand]

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."

Directly from their website:

" Important Note: Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") from time to time without notice by posting a new version of this document on the Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or any successor URL(s)). All revised copies of the Policy are effective immediately upon posting. Accordingly, customers and users of the Comcast High-Speed Internet Service should regularly visit our web site and review this Policy to ensure that their activities conform to the most recent version. In the event of a conflict between any subscriber or customer agreement and this Policy, the terms of this Policy will govern. Questions regarding this Policy and complaints of violations of it by Comcast customers and users can be directed to http://online.comcast.net/contactus/ "

And this...

"Copyright Infringement Comcast is committed to complying with U.S. copyright and related laws, and requires all customers and users of the Service to comply with these laws. Accordingly, you may not store any material or content on, or disseminate any material or content over, the Service (or any part of the Service) in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including rights granted by U.S. copyright law. Owners of copyrighted works who believe that their rights under U.S. copyright law have been infringed may take advantage of certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the "DMCA") to report alleged infringements. It is Comcast's policy in accordance with the DMCA and other applicable laws to reserve the right to terminate the Service provided to any customer or user who is either found to infringe third party copyright or other intellectual property rights, including repeat infringers, or who Comcast believes in its sole discretion is infringing these rights. Comcast may terminate the Service at any time with or without notice for any affected customer or user. Copyright owners may report alleged infringements of their works that are stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features by sending Comcast's authorized agent a notification of claimed infringement that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA. Upon Comcast's receipt of a satisfactory notice of claimed infringement for these works, Comcast will respond expeditiously to either directly or indirectly (i) remove the allegedly infringing work(s) stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features or (ii) disable access to the work(s). Comcast will also notify the affected customer or user of the Service of the removal or disabling of access to the work(s). If the affected customer or user believes in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then that person may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the person who sent the original notification of claimed infringement and will follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification. In all events, you expressly agree that Comcast will not be a party to any disputes or lawsuits regarding alleged copyright infringement."

However, nowhere does it say that they may give away your personal information. It just says that they can shut off your service. You can read the entire TOS here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

Waive your rights...?

[irving47]

Is it really legit. or legal to waive your legal rights via a TOS agreement? Especially one that you didn't sign?

On the other hand, do we *really* have a right to privacy when it's the cable co. that is making the records, and therefore, their property to do with as they please?

If I have a place of business, and I set up a CC camera system recording all entries/motion in my shop to a hard drive, (and have a sign up saying all activity is being monitored by cameras) can it possibly be illegal to do with that footage as I please?

I'm not taking sides, as I can see both arguments, but I just wonder what the legality really and truly is, and then what would actually hold up in court...

Re:Denied

[Phil246]

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.

Re:Nice to have this on file:

[Anonymous Coward]

chat id : ce51a231-b623-4d9f-b571-edc082b8f760
Problem : Billing/General Inquiry

David > Thank you for contacting Comcast High Speed Internet Support. My name is Dave. How may I assist you with your billing issue today?

robert > Hi, I'm worried about what you might do with my billing information

robert > I was made aware you turned over records for Dawnell Leadbetter of Seattle, WA without her prior consent or notification to the RIAA

robert > I would like to know if your company is willing to turn over my information to anyone who asks you to.

robert > Hello?

David > No, we cannot give out account specific information unless they can verify the information that we require.

robert > Which information is that?

David > For security purposes I will need the following before I can provide any account specific information. This information includes the last 4 digits of the Primary Account owner's Social Security number/Security Code (If applicable), the full 16 Digit Account number or the exact amount of the most recent payment on the account.

David > That is the information that we request.

robert > OK, you will not divuldge my information unless they can provide proof they are me? Is that the gist of your statement?

David > No, that wouldn't be a gist, that would be an accurate statement.

robert > good enough... thank you

David > Customer has closed chat and left the room

David > Is there anything else that I can assist you with?

David > Thank you for choosing Comcast as you Internet Service Provider. If you have any more questions feel free to email us or you can chat again with one of our Online Customer Support Specialists 24 hour a day, 7 days a week at http://www.comcastsupport.com/sdcuser/asp/default. asp. Have a great evening.

David > Analyst has closed chat and left the room

The real story

[gorbachev]

The real story here is the fact that a collection agency is trying to collect money from this woman, not that she is sueing Comcast over alleged privacy violations.

How did the collection agency get involved? The information in the news story says nothing about it. Did she settle with the RIAA (the story implies she did not), but then not pay? Or did RIAA just hand over the "bill" to the collection agency without a settlement or a court case?

Something's fishy in the story. Either details were left out, or RIAA is up to something really fucked up.

I call collusion

[murderlegendre]

Wait a second.. two 800 pound gorilla companies, who might ostensibly be considered competitiors (The RIAA and Comcast are both involved in distributing media content) are working together to gain additional control over a marketplace.. I know there's a name for this.. what is it again.. oh yeah, it's:

Collusion: In the study of economics, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole.

Collusion is largely illegal in the United States due to antitrust law, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place.

(The above is courtesy Wikipedia.org, reprinted here under fair-use terms)

What bothers me...

[ZenPirate]

What really bothers me is how a lot of folks are equating the RIAA with law enforcement agencies. It's a private company that seems to have an easier time getting information than the FBI does. WTF is wrong with that picture? On second thought, maybe we could tell the RIAA that Bin Laden used Kazaa to download some Britney Spears mp3s... I bet they could get his whereabouts in 15 minutes flat.

This ain't the first time

[PapalMonkey]

"...The Settlement Support Center, a group that works exclusively for the RIAA handling settlement negotiations. "

"...The RIAA referred all of the Drexel cases to the Settlement Support Center, a group of lawyers who specialize in settling."

"...recieved calls from the "RIAA Settlement Support Center". A disgusting attempt at making themselves sound like the nice-guys they are known to not be."

Suspicion of Illegal acts

[nurb432]

The problem is there isnt a court ordered investigation, the information was released to a PRIVATE company 'just beacuse'.

Once this is a legit, police run investigation with a legit warrant, then comcast has some ground to stand on in releasing this information to the COURT.

But just because some company thinks there *might have been* a violation isnt a reason to release anything, especially not to a private company.

What exactly can the RIAA even do anyways?

[saleenS281]

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.

Re:What exactly can the RIAA even do anyways?

[oneiron]

None of that matters... They're just trying to scare people into settlements. You don't need a solid case to do that. All you need are a few expensive lawyers...

Re:Which Law?

[mrsev]

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!!!!

Suing is easy. Winning is hard.

[wheelbarrow]

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.

Passed on to Debt Agency == Automatic punishment

[Oori]

I just wanted to remind everyone that passing one's bill onto a debt collection agency is often tantamount to immediate punishment. Once the agency gets an unpaid bill, they often register the uncollected bill with the credit agencies. Once that happens, all sorts of strange things start happening -- your APRs on the credit cards go up, loans become more difficult to get, etc'.
This "negative information" having to do with your debt being assigned to an agency *stays* even after you had paid your bill. IN fact, it takes quite a bit of work to have them remove it for you. So even if the RIAA eventually turns out to have made a mistake, or the debt agency turns out to be wrong, simply starting the process corresponds to immediate punishment.

Re:Where is the EFF!!111!!!!!1118

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Enter 1984

[yasuo.hiroshi]

When did the Movie Industry and the Music Industry become the police of the internet? They are even working to get ISPs to regulate port activity and bar users who uare using too much bandwidth. So what if all that bandwidth I'm using is for legit purposes such as hosting my own website. Sounds like the MPAA/RIAA might hbe doing some shady business with the tech industry.

On top of that, what give a company the right to store someone's personal information on their servers for these IP bullies to review. If I was {insert big tel-com co here} I would NOT be storing such sensitive information, nor would I allow any information be disclosed to any organisation that wasn't OFFICAL government law enforcement. So whose side are the ISPs on anyways?

Perhaps this lawsuit is long overdue. And so too I hope the MPAA/RIAA get what they deserve too... a boycott and multiple lawsuits by hundreds of people over the issue of privacy and IP bullying.

Re:Where is the EFF!!111!!!!!1118

[NormalVisual]

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.

She should. If it truly was a collection agency that contacted her, it's a simple matter for her to send a letter right back to them demanding verification of the debt. There's been no court case establishing said debt, and I don't see how she could owe the RIAA itself anything. A member company, perhaps, but the RIAA is a separate corporation. I suppose the member company(ies) could have assigned the "debt" to the RIAA, but I don't think the collection agency would have a very fun time trying to prove the debt exists, and when they can't, the real fun can begin where prizes can get up into the thousands and thousands of dollars.