Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Secretly Tries to Get ISP Subscriber Info
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an attempt to change the rules of the game, the RIAA secretly went to a federal district court in Denver with an ex parte application. The goal was to get the judge to rule that the federal Cable Communications Policy Act does not apply to the RIAA's attempts to get subscriber information (pdf) from cable companies. Just to clarify, ex parte means that the application was secret, no one else — neither the ISP nor the subscribers — were given notice that this was going on. They were, in effect, asking the Court to rule that the RIAA does not need to get a court order to be able to force an ISP to disclose confidential subscriber information. The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."
They're just following the example set by our leader. And we just can't get enough. The abuse is turning us on.
What?
It's not much of a secret anymore
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Alright, so the judge issued the order. But isn't a big part of an ex parte order the fact that affected parties can contest it? ISPs aren't bound to this ruling in any meaningful way, am I right?
Sony ha
When the RIAA requests the information, then is the time for ISPs to challenge whether they have to hand over the info.
Until they are specifically involved in a relevant action, they have no legal standing, and therefore there is no reason to notify them.
Mountains out of molehills again.
"Secretly"? Seriously? This is in the public record, it's not sealed. Or should anyone making any kind of legal motion be required to send out a mass mailing to anyone potentially affected?
I'm all for shutting down the ridiculous tactics of the RIAA, but this hardly qualifies -- the reporting is sensationalistic and misleading. When the RIAA demands information from an ISP, then the ISP can fight back (in court) if they choose to do so -- which is exactly why the judge in question did not rule on the general applicability of the issue, and instead just granted that particular request.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I'm far more worried about the RIAA than Google+DoubleClick
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
1. I agree the summary is a bit inflamatory.
2. This is to be expected in a society that places privatizing over everything else. Those of you that think the "ownership society" is a good thing, please consider this example carefully. It is the logical outcome of a legal system that emphasizes priviatization. Other than that, I'm not sure why this is so outrageous.
What I'd like to know is why _that_ judge? I mean there had to be some maneuvering to this whole affair. What was the process that got them this privilege?
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Okay - I'm trying to find a problem here, and can't.
RIAA has an IP they believe is downloading copyrighted material. This allows them to request that the ISP give them the personal information of the person that was using the IP addresses, according to the logs of the ISP. This request must include the court's order, which specifically mentions that the ISP can move to squash the request.
So the RIAA can take the information they have (the IP), and get the detailed information they need to file a full lawsuit. I think they've been getting burned on their "John Doe" lawsuits, so they're actually trying to get the right info early on.
So where's the problem with this?
-- Ravensfire
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
You're not a troll because I disagree with you. You're a troll because of how you say what you say.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Hey, they have registries for sex offenders, why not for *AA attack dogs? I wouldn't want one of either in my neighborhood!
Their choices do not include abandoning "the futile attempt to reign in every pirate." Their choices are pretty much (a) stop widespread piracy of music or (b) close down. There isn't much of a middle ground.
The people that are uploading music to others aren't "potential customers", they are people that want to destroy the business of selling recorded music. Period. Oh, and by the way, so far it looks like they are winning.
This is a fight to the death, pure and simple. The business model of selling recorded music is headed for obsolesence. Once you enable "usable, sharable, transferable music" there is no more money behind music promotion. This is the only thing that drives the current music industry - promotion, fueled by the money from sales. Why buy when you can share? There is no music industry without promotion.
This does enable a whole different kind of promotion, the sort of word-of-mouth person-to-person sort of promotion. But one that doesn't create big names with big sales - it creates small crowds at concerts. Can individual artists live with this? Probably. But it does mean there is no promotion anymore. And promotion is a multi-billion dollar industry right now that interacts with many parts of people's lives.
ISPs are so large now they could give a flip less about their individual customers. Things aren't like they were back in the early '90s when each subscriber was a bigger slice of the revenue pie. The fact many people are locked between one or two high-speed providers means they have a captive customer base. There's no worry of mass-exodus over privacy issues for anyone. As the megamedia corps buy more and more markets it gets so even moving to another state isn't enough to give someone a different choice.
They'll gladly throw their customer to the wolves rather than go to bat legally for them. Their willingness to pull content whenever someone waves a DMCA notice, even when the company has no claims to the content, should be evidence enough of this.
Under our American justice system, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a strong presumption in favor of giving notice prior to the Court's taking action , not after.
It is much harder to get a Court to take action to undo something it has done, then to get it not to take the action in the first place.
Having a couple of days to hurriedly (a) investigate what the case was based on, (b) investigate what the motion for discovery was based on, (c) engage your own witnesses, and experts, and do legal research, and prepare and serve and file papers, is not the same as having an opportunity to meet all that ahead of time.
The honorable and legally correct and professional way to seek this discovery would be to give the university notice prior to making the application, and give the university extra copies of the summons, the complaint, the motion papers, and the court rules, for distribution to the John Does, so that they would all have a meaningful opportunity to consult with legal counsel, and so that their counsel would have a meaningful opportunity to act.
The RIAA doesn't do thing the honorable, correct, or professional... it always opts for the sneakiest, most un-American, most unfair, way of doing everything.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And I'm guessing he had something to do with getting the decision published in Internet Law & Regulation, which is where I learned of it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful