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

[sqlrob]

- Alive

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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: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: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

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.

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.