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."
If the government is not allowed to secretly spy on you (before the PATRIOT Act anyway... IANAL), why should the RIAA?
Possibility for abuse aside, at least the government claims to do it save lives, whereas the RIAA is doing it to make (more) money.
Note: This is not a comment on the PATRIOT Act. It is a comment on how the RIAA now has more power than the FBI, CIA, NSA, and local police combined. The only difference being that they can not shoot you.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...Have you been living in a cave? Your arguments would be valid...if the RIAA was only suing pirates. Since they're suing people who can't possibly have copyrighted or it would be absurd to say they've pirated anything ever they don't deserve any right to make their job any easier. If the RIAA was a good company who legally went after those who caused it damages and didn't use scare tactics, questionable legality, heavy lobbying, and attempts to get outright illegal things (e.g. pretexting) made legal for them then you'd be valid.
/. that it's a repository of pirated stuff and they'd be obliged to check it out or just shut it down. Doesn't sound too bad, until you consider how many notices they could be receiving every day. Hey, that would be a new way to do DOS attacks wouldn't it? Send a couple thousand e-mails to the ISP instead of the server and wait for them to pull the plug.
And whose to say that getyourfreewarez.com isn't a joke sight? Or webcomic? By your argument I could tell whatever ISP hosts
The RIAA is a dirty fighting company who uses scare tactics and outright extortion to put an end to a business which costs them almost nothing and deserve no more aid from our justice system thank you very much.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Let them, but force everyone who is a affiliated with the RIAA to expose their personal information publicly. Make a website where anyone, at any time, can log on and see what any member of the RIAA is looking at online, what email they get and where they shop online. Maybe then they would see how utterly ridiculous this is and would think a little bit before they start reaching for every dollar hanging out of some kid's pocket.
The entire basis of the court system is the adversarial system.
Once the MafiAA have gotten a court order / judgement, it "can" be overturned, but it's much harder to get a ruling overturned than it is to get one in the first place.
The whole trick with the MafiAA going for a ex parte decision is so they can go behind closed doors, give the judge a long blowjob of lies and deception, pay him off, and get their "judgement" which they'll then use to threaten and abuse even more people - without anyone being able to give the other side of the issue and point out where the MafiAA is full of shit.
Jack Valenti just kicked the bucket. Wouldn't it be nice if the MafiAA lawyers/suits would follow in his footsteps quickly? It's not like they are contributing members of society. They won't be missed and I doubt even their own mothers would cry at their funerals.
Just yesterday I was discussing the current state of affairs with a coworker. I mentioned the NSA/AT&T wiretapping and realized this person hadn't seen or heard the 1st thing about this topic. A topic that has been discussed to death on Slashdot and kept on the front page for a cumulative time of several weeks.
The point remains that anyone affected can challenge this in court, when they are affected.
So who, exactly, should have been party to this motion? Every ISP? Every person who uses the internet? What happens when we extrapolate to all ex parte motions?
Exactly, which is why we have a legal system to adjudicate this. The courts exist so that people can cry foul, and have a legal option for determining if a "foul" actually occurred.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The last resort in this kind of dilemma is boycott.
In June 2006 someone blogged an interesting suggestion. People were told Not to go to record stores on July 4 between 11 am and 2 pm, buy some DVDs, leave the store, realize that it contains a DRM label, change mind, go back to store and return the item saying the reason.
Apparently, it didn't work last year. But this year, who knows people will follow the suggestion in great numbers?
This kind of action should touch the sensitivity of RIAA, MPAA and the Hollywood establishment.
>This (I know it's a bit late) is the last straw. RIAA will never get another dime from me.
I made the controversial decision in 1994 to never buy another RIAA represented product.
Since then I have made a handful of exceptions, in cases where I have personally bought CDs directly from the artist, that is, it went from the songwriter's hand to mine, usually autographed, after his show. I have developed quite a large collection of independently produced and distributed music, and an even larger collection of things that have been released for public consumption by the artists with no intention of monetary gain.
Back in the day, I was a hardcore record collector. I basically started life with a collection of records from the 40s and 50s already handed down to me. I kept it up throughout the whole 60-70s rock era. I collected classical recordings, especially while majoring in music theory at university. For most of my life, buying recordings was one of the major expenses, usually right after rent and food. Since I'm a musician myself and had made a career of it, music purchases weren't merely entertainment expenses, and more than just business expenses. And granted there were lots of freebies. (When you have a lot of records, people give you records, you're making volume trades all the time, plus I worked in public radio, where I got to keep whatever was being thrown away, plus all the good promos.)
Anyway, long story short, I *stopped* buying RIAA-represented music because of the RIAA b.s., and I didn't ever start up again. Instead, I already realized that what was out there beyond the mainstream was far more interesting anyway, and I never looked back. Granted, I was already heavily into alternative and independent stuff to begin with, but the RIAA sent me all the way over.
Thanks RIAA.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
"The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."
One thing the article doesn't mention is that this is actually a good decision by the Magistrate Judge. I'm not a lawyer, but from a friend who is:
"...The RIAA also tried to get the Court to issue a ruling saying that 47 USC 551(c) did not apply to internet providers. That statute says a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. The Court declined to decide, likely because it wants to wait to see if Qwest will fight it, and that way have lawyers arguing both sides, instead of just the RIAA's lawyers.
They are not "above the law", and the Court issued the order in a way that actually allows the battle to be joined fairly--should Qwest so choose. And I'll bet they will."
Just to clarify. I think.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out