Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SBC Fights RIAA Over DMCA Subpoenas

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the unprincipled-stance dept.

Privacy 455

NaDrew writes "SFGate.com is running an AP article about Pac Bell's Internet arm suing music industry over file-sharer IDs. 'The suit also called to question some sections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the federal law the RIAA contends supports its latest legal actions. A spokesman for SBC said the RIAA's use of the DMCA in its legal quest for online song-sharers butts up against the privacy rights of SBC's customers. "The action taken by SBC Internet Services is intended to protect the privacy of our customers," said SBC spokesman Larry Meyer.'" So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What chance do they have of winning this? (4, Interesting)

mjmalone (677326) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579048)

I am totally against the DMCA, but how much of a chance do you think SBC has of winning? It looks like they are basically saying that by following the DMCA they will be breaking a contractual agreement with their costumers, but this will not hold up in court (or will it?) I suppose the arguement that the RIAA did not follow procedure could work, but one would assume that would just lead to the RIAA re-filing using proper procedure. In any case, it is nice that some people are still fighting this and not just bending over for the RIAA like some companies (comcast).

Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (1)

kmak (692406) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579067)

Though the odds are definitely against them, it seems like a good enough argument (legally) that has a decent chance of winning...

Of course, it always helps to have someone with money to throw around..

Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579081)

RTFA. you'll see SBC's viewpoint.

Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (2, Interesting)

mjmalone (677326) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579120)

I read the article. It said that SBC thinks they should have recieved the documents in a california court, and that they are worded to broadly. Like I said, even if this argument wins wouldn't it just lead to the RIAA rewriting the subpeonas and submitting them in california? The arguement that following the DMCA will break a contractual agreement won't work (I dont think).

Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579085)

They can probably get the subpoenas thrown out on a technicality quite easily. The rest of the arguments are a little trickier. Declaring laws unconstitutional can always be a problem.

Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579100)

< DMCA is your MOM's dick! >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579263)

American girls and American guys will always stand up and salute;
Will always recognize
When we see ol' glory flying,
There's a lot of men dead,
So we can sleep in peace at night when we lay down our head.

My daddy served in the army,
Where he lost his right eye.
But he flew a flag out in our yard 'til the day that he died.
He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me
To grow up and live happy in the land of the free.

Now this nation that I love has fallen under attack.
A mighty sucker punch came flying in from somewhere in the back.
Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye,
Man we lit up your world like the Fourth of July.

Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly,
And there's gonna be Hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
It's gonna feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you...
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!

Oh, Justice will be served and the battle will rage.
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
You'll be sorry that you messed with the US of A
'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way.

Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly,
And there's gonna be Hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you...
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!

Of the Red, White and Blue..
Of my Red, White and Blue...

Original Slashdot Business Model: BASIC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579050)

10 PRINT "News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters."
20 GOTO 10
30 ???
40 PROFIT!!!
50 END

Love Always,
News For Turds

Re:Original Slashdot Business Model: BASIC (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579291)

The new Slashdot business model inserts a line 15 in there that says to pull news links from Fark.com.

WAKE UP RATFUCKERS (-1)

Proctal Relapse (467579) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579059)

WHERE'S THE FLOOD

TH3RD P0ST [troll] (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579063)

Re:TH3RD P0ST [troll] (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579074)

Suggestion for /code update.

Make people pass a test where they know the definition of troll before they are allowed to post or moderate...

Offtopic moderation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579214)

Great! Someone gets it!!!

BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579069)

BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists

from http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/29/151021 1 [macslash.org]

posted by Cannonball on Tuesday July 29, @09:57AM
from the oh-this-sounds-interesting. dept.

Jody Whitesides writes "My name is Jody Whitesides, I'm an artist that is about to be brought to the Apple iTunes Music Store. Of course I recently heard about BuyMusic so I decided to point my Mac browser at it (with Javascript turned off you can see the site)." Jody ran into some trouble with BuyMusic that is very troubling: they're ripping him off. Dig Deeper for the whole story.

I did a search for one of my old CD's that will be going onto iTunes and It turns out my CD was there on BuyMusic.com. As were the CD's of several other bands that I'm friends with. All of whom were not contacted about being placed for sale there.

Here's what I've deduced... BuyMusic.com (which I will refer to as BM) got their "vast" music library of 300,000 plus songs from a company called the Orchard. The Orchard is a distribution company that has consistently shafted artists by not paying them for CD's sold nor returning unsold CD's or cancelling contracts. So, without the express consent of what is likely lots of the Orchards catalog, BM has put it up for sale at the bargain price of $.79 a song.

So now, they can tout they're selling tracks at $.79 and they can say they have a library of music of over 300,000 songs. But what they don't tell you is that it comes from musicians/bands that were not asked for permission, and who will likely not see a penny of any sale made through BM. By their very own site policy they are committing copyright infringement. They have done this to lure PC/windows users to their site in hopes to sell the few major label aquired songs they do have, at a price that is much higher than Apple's $.99.

I'm currently looking into legal means to have my music removed from their site and strongly encourage users to not browse BM's site nor purchase from it."
We contacted Jody this week to discuss his story, and he's promised to keep us informed in his battle with Orchard and BuyMusic.com. He also gave us the following information:

"At that time I did a distribution deal (1997-98). The original contract was to set me up with Brick and Mortar distribution, nothing else.

Fast forward a couple of years. I dissolved the band, but kept the disc and still sold it, since I own it. At one point I was notified. That I had some sales with the Orchard, but since it was so random and I hadn't dealt with them in so long, I never got paid. Though they asked for more CD's.

Then they announced they were having financial troubles and were going to go out of business. At this point lots of artists with them were having difficulty getting their merchandise back. I just decided to "screw it" not worry about it, that I would never see the small amount from the sales and call it a loss.

Fast Forward again to last week. It came to my attention that BuyMusic was up. So I tried to get in to see the hubbub. Mostly cause I'm so excited to be finally getting onto iTunes. Immediately I wasn't happy with BuyMusic, being a Mac lover. I then got word that anyone who was with the Orchard may very well be on BuyMusic. I went to double check and sure enough my old CD (Amalgam - Delicate Stretch of the Seems) that I still control and own was up there, for sale without my permission. This made my blood boil.

I contacted several of my friends who had also done deals with the Orchard and found they are on BuyMusic as well, not mention that they were not told of this either and all of them thought the Orchard was out of business.

I started going to the Orchard's site, found that they still seem to be conducting business, unfortunately I can no longer get into my account cause the information there is so old that I don't have it anymore. I also started going through their catalog and searching for Orchard artists on BuyMusic. I'm finding about fifty percent to be up there and to this point, everyone I've contacted had no idea they were on BuyMusic, and also though the Orchard wasn't around anymore."

All of this is coming on the heels of the problems with the BuyMusic service, USA Today is reporting that songs can't be transfered to portable devices, and it appears their their ads are a bit of a play on Apple's own ad campaign. Even the Washington Post's Rob Pegararo gets into the game this week, taking their service out to the woodshed for some abuse.

We will keep you up to date on Jody's story over the coming months as he battles with their legal department.

Re: BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579098)

oooooo it was posted on macslash... wow... those asshat mac zealots wouldn't happen to have any alterior motive for ripping on anything that competes with an apple product would they? OH WAIT!!! yea they would, they paid way too much for a shitty product and now they have to attempt to defend themselves against the rest of the world telling it like it is!

Re: BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579132)

What on earth does the above story, which was copied from another article, have to do with PacBell internet fighting the RIAA for their customers privacy?

Re: BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579151)

< You fucking karma whore! >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re: BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579174)

No karma whoring there, it was posted as AC.

Re: BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579189)

< You fucking idiot! >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re: BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579206)

Clearly, Jody needs to contact the DOJ's copyright lawyers. [slashdot.org]

They said they actually prosecute large companies, give them a chance. Looks like an open & shut case.

Re: BuyMusic.com Ripping Off Artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579245)

NO Problem. I won't get it from BuyMusic. I will just get it off KaZaA.

MooK0re! I5 back! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579083)

_____________________
< Thanks for the fish >
---------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:MooK0re! I5 back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579213)


Welcome back.


GNAA PR department.

It was inevitable. (4, Insightful)

James A. A. Joyce (681634) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579090)

"Pacific Bell Internet Services jumped into the contentious music-downloading fray late Wednesday, filing a lawsuit against the recording industry and questioning the constitutionality of the industry's effort to track down online music sharers." (emphasis mine)

Joyce's Law [faqs.org] : As a US lawsuit goes on longer, the probability of its constitutionality being challenged approaches one. :-)

Acronyms (-1, Troll)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579091)

SBC! RIAA! DMCA! What if they all merged into the... SBMIACA or something... Stupid B******, More Insane Americans Cause Anything. Or something that makes sense.

Re:Acronyms (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579116)

< CSOYH = Cow shit on your head! >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:Acronyms (1)

ftvcs (629126) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579169)

Chill Luigi,
You can always move to Belgium, the downloading paradise.
Over here it's called IFPI, BSA and AGALEV.

The horror.

I'm a little consfused here . (5, Interesting)

ayeco (301053) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579093)

In what way does your internet connection link you to the data that travels over your connection?

How many people share connections with other people in a household? How can the riaa sue you for something your 12 year old daughter did? or your wife?

Re:I'm a little consfused here . (5, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579140)

You're legally responsible for the actions taken place using the ISP connection you've signed yourself as responsible for.


AFAIK - check your contract with your ISP.

Re:I'm a little consfused here . (5, Informative)

tybalt44 (176219) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579356)

You may be responsible _to your ISP_ for acts using your connection, but you can't be responsible to other parties through signing a contract with your ISP; that's just nutty.

It may be that you indemnify your ISP against actions taken against it by third parties due to acts using your connection. That is not the same as taking some sort of "legal responsibility" for acts using your ISP.

A contract *only* affects your rights vis-a-vis the other parties to the contract. It *cannot* affect your rights vis-a-vis third parties. This is a fundamental principle of contract law.

Um...wife no, children yes! (3, Insightful)

linuxkrn (635044) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579208)

Can they sue you for something your wife did...no, your children... YES. Your wife is over 18, one would HOPE, so she is legally responsible for her own actions. However, if you have children under 18 then you, being their legal guardian are responsible for their actions. It's your job as a PARENT to make sure they do what is right and not break any laws. They cannot be prosecuted in many cases until they turn 18, but you can and will be for their actions.

Great, if only... (5, Interesting)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579094)

Now if only SBC, Verizon, and all the other major ISPs got together in one big court case the RIAA might get frightened. I don't see why they are filing all these lawsuits separately, I'm sure the more evil lawyers they throw at this issue at once, the more the courts might agree with them (or at least get the media to pick up on this story a bit more, instead of just having an AP wire somewhere on the back pages of their websites).

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Great, if only... (1)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579111)

Yeah, class-action their butts. Verizon, Bright House, AT&T, all those companies suing the RIAA would definately scare them.

Aren't these two very similar? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579101)

Look how close these two are:

"We, the FOSS (F from free-riding, not free) community, will adjust holders' copyright over their work to our best profit. Of course, we demand rights for ourselves -this is how democracy should be redefined", from the FOSS gospel.

"What is yours is ours, and what is mine is mine", that's the communists'

Re:Aren't these two very similar? (0, Offtopic)

landaker (141792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579246)

You're right, those two quotes do have something very important in common: you made them both up.

Just the big ISPs? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579107)

Whenever we hear about this dragnet of P2P users, it's always the big players -- SBC, Verizon, etc. Has there been any "hits" on P2P users on smaller dialup and/or regional ISPs?


I know the RIAA is playing this close to the vest so they won't tip their hand, but it would be nice to have a hint that "smaller (and dial-up) is better."

Re:Just the big ISPs? (2, Informative)

beefdart (520839) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579243)

If you are trying to distribute music in bulk, you dont use dialup.

postive light? (2, Interesting)

xpulsar87x (305131) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579123)

Anyone else worried about misenterpreting these standsups from Verizon and SBC as being pro-filesharing? Though the article talks about them trying to protect their users, the overall picture seems to be painted as evil RIAA vs. good ISPs, which is really not the whole picture.

Why exactly are the ISPs so concerned with the user privacy? As an end user I'm certainly concerned with it, but you'd think that ISPs wouldn't really care that much. Fighting the RIAA will cost them money, just to protect privacy? What have they to gain from that?

PROFITS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579137)

< licence to SHIT on your head! >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:postive light? (4, Insightful)

leerpm (570963) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579170)

Because when the ISP fails to protect it's users privacy, their customers will no longer trust them. They will move to another provider.

All of the ISP's know what is happening on their networks. Especially those providing broadband services, know that if the RIAA is successful in shutting down the P2P networks, it will remove a lot of the incentive for customers to pay for broadband. The cost of complying is probably minor compared to the cost of lost revenue from customers leaving those services.

Re:postive light? (5, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579171)

What have they to gain from that?

Think about it. The ISPs who are challenging are mostly broadband providers. Do people need broadband to check email or surf the web a bit? Nope. People need broadband for filesharing. If filesharing is completely shutdown the need for higher bandwidth comes into question. I have known average users who say things like "$40/month for broadband isn't too bad b/c I can get free music."

Re:postive light? (1, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579280)

hahahhahahaah.

You think that ISPs want to let their users suck 100% of their bandwith 100% of the day on P2P? Why do you think that quite a few Universities have gone to throttling/closing those ports?

Do you think that download caps and per MB charges over that cap are not to curb people from using P2P?

Re:postive light? (4, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579358)

You think that ISPs want to let their users suck 100% of their bandwith 100% of the day on P2P?

Yes and no. Why get broadband at all if I can't use the bandwidth? ISPs aren't stupid. They know one of the main drivers of Joe Blow getting broadband is p2p. If you remove that driver, then why should the average consumer buy broadband?

Why do you think that quite a few Universities have gone to throttling/closing those ports?

This has nothing to do with pay/month ISPs. Most college broadband is wrapped up in the tuition costs. My guess is that the tuition is not covering all the bandwidth that students were using.

Do you think that download caps and per MB charges over that cap are not to curb people from using P2P?

No it is not to curb people from using it, but to make more money on people using it. To the guy downloading it is still a good deal for him to pay $1/100MB(or whatever they charge) and get free songs for that price. ISPs in essence become a quasi-distributor of music without having to pay for the rights. They are making tons of money off people who p2p and don't want it to go away.

Re:postive light? (2, Informative)

PyromanFO (319002) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579360)

You think that ISPs want to let their users suck 100% of their bandwith 100% of the day on P2P? Why do you think that quite a few Universities have gone to throttling/closing those ports?

Universities have begun throttling thier ports because they don't make money off of you using thier network. Furthermore, most Universities offer you access with much greater upload and download capacity than your standard DSL/Cable modem. The killer app for broadband is p2p, and the universities don't care because they're not in the business of selling broadband. These companies, however, are.


Download caps and excess charges are partially deterrents and partially moneymakers. Much like speeding tickets.

Broadband is for more than p2p (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579367)

How about for gaming? And it is very nice for plain surfing, too. My college doesn't allow p2p, but I still find the connection speed useful for browsing.

Re:postive light? (1)

dauvis (631380) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579386)

I have broadband but I have never installed any kind of P2P software on my computer. I use it mainly for playing online games such as DAoC and NWN. Is this overkill? probably. I can't find any reliable dial up services where I am. To me, a reliable connection and fast connection is worth the extra $20.

Re:postive light? (5, Insightful)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579194)

Why exactly are the ISPs so concerned with the user privacy? [snip] Fighting the RIAA will cost them money, just to protect privacy? What have they to gain from that?

One of two things:
1) It costs them money to comply with the RIAA demands. They need to have staff looking up ip addresses, cross referencing them with billing records, etc etc. If the RIAA starts tacking more and more requests into a single envelope that starts to get expensive.
2) Marketing. If you have a lot of broadband customers and the money to play legal games, then this is a great way to get some good publicity amongst a very attractive target demographic.

I guess i should throw in a third option:
3) They're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and their belief that a consumer's rights to privacy outweigh a company's *right* to profit. /t

Re:postive light? (3, Insightful)

Cobratek (14456) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579242)

*snip* Fighting the RIAA will cost them money, just to protect privacy? What have they to gain from that? */snip*

How about respect and loyalty from customers.

Re:postive light? (1)

dBLiSS (513375) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579329)

There is a posability that if the ISP gives out private information about its customers, thus breaking their agreement with their constumers, they could face suits from their customers sued by the RIAA, or even a class action suit by a bunch of customers. Then, they could lose even more customers from the backlash of giving out private information. ...I'm just guessing at all this.

Bad dog! Play dead. (5, Interesting)

technix4beos (471838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579129)

From the article:
The recording industry disagreed late Wednesday, in statement given to The Associated Press.

"We are disappointed that Pac Bell has chosen to fight this, unlike every other ISP which has complied with their obligations under the law. We had previously reached out to SBC to discuss this matter but had been rebuked," the statement read.

(emphasis mine, added.)

Right. More like, "We are disappointed that Pac Bell has a spine, and didn't roll over as asked."

Why is it that when a (smaller) corporation decides to stand up for their customers' rights against a (larger) corporation, it's always spun as being unlawful?

It's time the DMCA was given a hard look at by the people who have a clue in the legal community, and who have the power to affect change.

That's wishful thinking perhaps.

Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579241)

because under CURRENT LEGISLATION (also known as THE LAW), the RIAA has every right (from what we can gather) to do what they are doing.

Now, SBC is fighting that (which is not unlawful) but they still do have "obligations under the law" to turn that information over.

The fact that we don't agree with the law has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (5, Insightful)

technix4beos (471838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579326)

Just because a law is in existance does not mean that no one has the right to challenge it's constitutionality, a practice that for decades has served well to overturn even the most ardunt of laws.

Without people to stand up to such pathetic excuses of legal bindings, where would the United States be today?

I can only imagine the very faint glimmer of hope trapped in the minds of the people enslaved in that future society. But alas, that "future" is not yet here, and we can all rest easy. Perhaps.

The DMCA and its ilk are tools driven to bring about a reality that no one wants to live in. If no one challenges the various aspects pertinent to how broadly the DMCA reaches into society, then there is no point in even discussing it here in this forum at all. Might as well just enjoy your coffee, shuffle along with the crowd to your nine-to-five job, and clock in another boring day.

Innovation? Deliberation? Thought? These concepts are unknown to most of the corporate figureheads who control the very media we rely on. Why play into their hands?

I want to provide a relevant url for anyone interested in seeing how a media system should act like:

http://www.indymedia.org/ [indymedia.org]

Food for thought. Have a nice day. ;)

Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579363)

I never said that it was illegal for them to fight it. I said that the RIAA was in its rights to request the information from SBC.

You are reading into what the RIAA said. Don't do that. They are "legally obligated" doesn't mean that they are doing something illegal.

They got resources. Just use 'em more effectively (5, Interesting)

spiritgreywolf (683532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579153)

Whether they win or not, the thing to remember is that they (Telco ISP's), at least have the resources to throw around to tie it up in the courts for sometime. Whether it's about compliance or not, the fact that SBC says they wish to protect their customers privacy is a nice "we're for the little guy" selling point.

I would personally like to see the first ISP who refuses to actually keep records of email addresses or IP numbers tied to user accounts, e.g. assign a "token" for the purposes of billing, but don't track IP's, etc, based on that token. Sell service plans that are all or nothing where everyone is throttled the same.

I can just imagine where the RIAA would be if they issued subpoenas for records that don't actually exist, or the ISP can prove they have no idea who these people are.

As long as you maintain a dynamic IP that changes each and every day, and they (ISP) don't maintain any route lists for billing purposes, how do they get you?

Re:They got resources. Just use 'em more effective (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579179)

/ They smear your computer \
\ with cow shit, thats how! /
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:They got resources. Just use 'em more effective (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579267)

yeah, and when there is a problem (i.e. cable modem uncapping, IP theft, abuse, etc) it will be so easy to find these offenders.

Re:They got resources. Just use 'em more effective (1)

cybercuzco (100904) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579341)

So sell cable uncapped, at one rate. No one sues the phone company when crimes are committed over their network. As long as purchasers understand that they may get lower speeds because of all the users uncapping, its all good.

Re:They got resources. Just use 'em more effective (1)

spiritgreywolf (683532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579355)

Okay... I'll bite... :-)

When have you known a consumer ISP be all that proactive and responsive to many of these issues? Perhaps they go after the uncappers as that affects their bottom line, but you can't tell me that with either proper configuration of routers, etc., that they can't prevent most of this crap further upstream - and STILL protect privacy.

They don't yet because it isn't FISCALLY viable to do so. Trust me - if there was a compelling business model, some major ISP would do just that.

Unfortunately, it might run right smack into the face of the latest anti-terrorist laws, since the ISP wouldn't be able to identify anyone, and this situation would piss off Mr. Jackboot Govthug to no end.

What about (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579157)



Friday, December 3, 1999

In its first major ruling on privacy and defamation in
cyberspace, the Court of Appeals on Thursday held that an
Internet Service Provider (ISP) is merely a conduit for
information, as opposed to a publisher, and consequently
is no more responsible than a telephone company for
defamatory materials transmitted over its lines.

The Court unanimously upheld an Appellate Division,
Second Department, decision that dismissed a defamation
lawsuit brought against Prodigy Services Co., by the
father of a Boy Scout whose identity was usurped by an
unknown imposter. The imposter posted vulgar messages in
the boy's name on an electronic bulletin board and e-
mailed abusive, threatening and sexually explicit
messages, also in the name of the boy, to the local
scoutmaster.


If they aren't responsible for defamation, why file sharing?

[O/T] How often do you get 3 different acronyms... (-1, Offtopic)

Alpha27 (211269) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579162)

...in a single sentence?

Re:[O/T] How often do you get 3 different acronyms (0)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579273)

On Slashot?

Quite often.

Re:[O/T] How often do you get 3 different acronyms (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579334)

brb afk ggp.

Re:[O/T] How often do you get 3 different acronyms (1)

Alpha27 (211269) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579380)

Maybe I should have implied I was kidding.

Or ...

I was j/k about the o/t posting here on /.

Illegal search & seizure (3, Interesting)

Bruha (412869) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579163)

How is it that the RIAA can see what songs you're sharing. Since all the information is located on your PC then them coming inside it to see what you have or do not have in iteself tresspassing. Also since they're not law enforcement acting on a judge signed search warrant they they're doubly breaking the law.

Breaking the law to catch law breakers does not make it right.

Another thing of note.. The RIAA claims filesharing is hurting their cd sales..

Well for the % of sales they've lost they've also released many times less the amount of cd's 4 years ago when this hubbub all started out. They've created their own sales problems not the filesharers.. I have friends who download songs they hear on the radio.. then get a few more the radio would never play so they get a idea if the cd is worth buying.. then they usually go out and buy the CD.

Re:Illegal search & seizure (4, Insightful)

mcp33p4n75 (684632) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579197)

Your P2P app posts a list of songs you have to the public. They look at the public list. It's no different than setting up a bootleg cd market in the middle of town square, at least privacy-wise ;)

Re:Illegal search & seizure (4, Insightful)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579283)

I have friends who download songs they hear on the radio.. then get a few more the radio would never play so they get a idea if the cd is worth buying.. then they usually go out and buy the CD.

Actually, this is the real reason the RIAA is scared of P2P. What your friends REALLY do, is listen to some of the other songs on the album, which are never played on the radio. When they figure out there's only one good song on the CD, then they don't buy it.

The RIAA survives by tricking people into buying 15 songs, of which only one is worth having.

Re:Illegal search & seizure (3, Insightful)

dnixon112 (663069) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579344)

They can see what songs you're sharing the same way anyone else can; posing as a user of the p2p system. People freely allow others to view what's in their shared folders. Why would it be illegal for representatives from the RIAA to view them just like any other user can?

*Not* Illegal search & seizure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579352)

Only the government is prohibited from doing this. You have no constitutional rights that protect a private citizen from doing that - as long as that citizen is not acting for the government.

Whether or not that citizen is violating some other law designed to protect your privacy (trespassing, breaking-and-entering, etc.) is another matter entirely...

Re:Illegal search & seizure (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579362)

> How is it that the RIAA can see what songs you're sharing.

The classic game netrek [netrek.org] had a lovely feature called a "cluecheck" where on some servers, you had to answer simple multiple choice questions using the in-game messenging system before being allowed to play. Can I suggest something similar for Slashdot. Here's one to get us started:

If you choose to run a P2P client/server that works by serving content to anyone who asks for it, should you expect it to know that it's the RIAA asking, and to refuse to talk to them?

  1. YES TEH CONSTURTUTIUN PORTECTS MEE!!!!!!
  2. What's a server?
  3. Oops.

It's all about the money. (2, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579166)

1) Allow users to use p2p on your net.
2) Charge users for using the net.
4) More users want to access p2p stuff, pay for network
3) PROFIT !!!
4) RIAA sues users
5) Users stop using net
6) NO PROFIT!!!
7) ISPs oppose RIAA
8) RIAA stops suing users.
9) Users safely use p2p again
10) PROFIT AGAIN!!!

Yes, Long, but without the tricky "???" part.

Re:It's all about the money. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579205)

1) Feed me grass
2) ???
3) SHIT ON YOUR HEAD
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

This is logical (2, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579167)

ISPs are afraid of losing customers. It's easier to delay the RIAA, pay some lawer fees and look like the good guys trying to protect their subscriber's anonymity than the guys who blow the whistle immediately.

Somehow though, I suspect ISPs would rather disclose the names of the P2P users the minute they get subpoenaed, and not be hassled by the RIAA, if they could get away with it ...

Re:This is logical (3, Insightful)

TephX (54484) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579244)

Somehow though, I suspect ISPs would rather disclose the names of the P2P users the minute they get subpoenaed, and not be hassled by the RIAA, if they could get away with it ...

Are you paranoid? This and the following quote from the story writeup:

So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving.

really make me wonder about people. These P2P users are paying customers. Sure, they may take up a decent chunk of bandwidth (and the worst of them the ISPs probably do want to kick off, but they can do that or throttle them without the RIAA's help), but if there's any legal way an ISP can get away with not disclosing this information to the RIAA, they're going to do it. I mean, their goal is to make a profit, and this is a significant selling point. If you want to use KaZaA or whatever, would you rather go with an ISP that rolls over when the RIAA even breathes in their direction, or one that will fight as hard as they reasonably can to not have to tell the RIAA who you are?

thank god (1, Flamebait)

Leahar (685914) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579210)

im glad there are at least afew companys out there who aren't the RIAA's prison bitch someone beating the RIAA in court is the only way to stop this tide of madness sweeping the nation

in other news the RIAA has anounced a new step in its fight against file trading "we can't let this violation of our copyright continue and so are pressuring the goverment to alow copyright violations to be punisable by soddamy" stated a slightly excited RIAA spokes person thought the bill has receaved inital approval there are still certain issues to be decided such as how much it will cost to have the parts of the constiution forbiding brutal sexual abuse changed and wether the defentants will be entitled to lubrication the RIAA expects to have these issues ironed out once payoffs to large goverment angencys have been negotiated

Re:thank god (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579223)

___________________
/ In soviet russia, \
\ cows shit on YOU /
-------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

DMCA VS PRIVACY (2, Interesting)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579230)

The supreme court has allready ruled that there are broad rights to privacy in your own home. Int the last case I believe it was found that those rights applied even when someone might intrude through casual means.

Now the question becomes will they hold that copyright holders have, the ability to gain the equivalent of search warrants without the usual certification by a judge that there is cause ? Heres to hoping that the supremes hold true

Re:DMCA VS PRIVACY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579260)

< DMCA vs cowshit on your HEAD >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
[sfk@localhost cowsay-3.0

At least someone is fighting (4, Informative)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579231)

Damn I hate the way the RIAA works. If they want to increase CD sales revenues, stop the pirate witch-hunt and use the money instead to:

1)Charge less per album
-> more people prepared to buy albums to see if they like it
2)Pay the artists more
-> more artists -> more choice -> better music

Yes but it's.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579303)

/ cheaper for me to \
| shit on you then to |
\ sue you! /

\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:At least someone is fighting (2, Interesting)

miroth (611718) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579323)

My question is, what happens to CD prices after the RIAA wins all these lawsuits, as they surely will?

Let's face the music (pun = intended) - distributing copyrighted works IS illegal, and if the RIAA gets its day in court to prove it, some users will lose. And, presumably, file sharing apps will go the way of the dodo.

However, what happens next? Personally, I think the RIAA will realize that they once again have a captive audience, and they'll raise prices to ungodly levels once again...simply because they can!

Here's to the ISPs fighting for their users' cause. They're one of the only lifelines Internet users have left. And that's pretty unfortunate.

Why so cynical? (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579250)

So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving.

No no no, you've got it all wrong--*surely* these giant corporations are doing this out of a deep desire to help their customers. :-)

Actual text of the subpoena: (4, Funny)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579252)

No wonder they say the subpoenas are "too broad":
All your IPs are belong to us.

- RIAA

Another shitopena (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579274)

< This time from Mookore >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

IMHO... (0, Troll)

meltoast (619369) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579264)

I hope the FBI doesn't investigate SBC and get the IRS involved who finds out that the AWOL CEO needs to be investigated by the DEA for wierd connections with the NRA ....need I go on.

Hmm!~ (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579266)

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but on the list of the songs which *might* get you into some trouble, there is one particular artist listed which I find... ironic.

None other than: Dave Matthews Band

Promoted by Napster, allowed to be freely downloaded (with permission) by Napster users and now is suing the people who made it what it is today. Hows that for a thank you?

Well this is interesting for sure. (1)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579270)

I don't think it's fair to say, "here have this system of subpoena's to follow and do all the detective work for us". I think that the RIAA should have to actually hunt these people down themselves, it's too insane to think that companies like SBC are just going to sit back and take extra work to hurt their business. I say subpoena the screennames and if no one owns up to them, then I guess the RIAA is screwed out of their money.

If someone breaks my car window, I can't subpoena everyone who owned a camera in the area to show me all the photos they took that day, then why on earth can I go to an ISP and say, check your logs for a user at this IP and give me their name/address.

Re:Well this is interesting for sure. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579284)

____________________
/ A herd of cows can \
| do a shitopena on |
\ your head! /
--------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:Well this is interesting for sure. (1)

MImeKillEr (445828) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579312)

If someone breaks my car window, I can't subpoena everyone who owned a camera in the area to show me all the photos they took that day, then why on earth can I go to an ISP and say, check your logs for a user at this IP and give me their name/address.

This is entirely different. Those people who owned a camera in the area weren't *providers* for you. They weren't giving you a service.

If you were parked in a pay lot that had camera & someone broke into your car, you *could* subpoena the video to find out who did it.

Now, if the ISPs all purged their records on a regular basis the RIAA wouldn't have any way of getting any information. Sure, the courts could compel them at some point to keep track, but by then everyone would know and find other means of downloading.

The Real Reason .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579305)

They aren't concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas they've been receiving as they claim but more than likely they see the handwriting on the wall and they know that if P2P usage is diminished people will increasingly cancel their broadband (cable/DSL) accounts and hence directly affect the bottom line big time....these actions by the RIAA could drastically retard the growth of broadband

Re:The Real Reason .... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579316)

/ The RIAA sponsors the \
| CSAA Cow shit |
\ assciation of America /
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

Re:The Real Reason .... (1)

presearch (214913) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579350)

Too late.
I've always found SBC to be drastically retarded.

they're not the only ones fighting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579313)

..i just read that charter communications is fighting them too...

Maybe they learned something from the Verizon suit (4, Interesting)

Stone316 (629009) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579321)

Its interesting to see that they are standing up to the RIAA, especially since Verizon lost.

Maybe, after examining the Verizon lawsuit, they found a loophole?

Re:Maybe they learned something from the Verizon s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579342)

< EAT MY SHIT churned from my 4 stomachs! >

\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||

I Have A Question (1)

tds67 (670584) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579331)

"This procedural gamesmanship will not ultimately change the underlying fact that when individuals engage in copyright infringement on the Internet, they are not anonymous and service providers must reveal who they are," the RIAA said.

So does this mean if I admit in an Anonymous Coward post on Slashdot that I have made copyrighted files available on P2P networks (which I have seen other Slashdot posters do), then my ISP must give my account info for the IP Address associated with my post to the RIAA upon demand?

And think before you respond with "No, because they have no evidence" because they have no evidence now (just a P2P shared filename, which may or may not be a music file).

Dude... (3, Funny)

xtermz (234073) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579343)

...thats just way too many acronyms in a title, this early in the morning....

They don't want to lose customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579354)

What they are worried about is revenue. File sharing is one of the biggest reasons for having a broadband connection and paying $49.99 a month for it.

More Mookore members wanted. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579373)

1) Download the offical Mookore [nog.net] CDK (Cow development kit) Requires a perl virtual machine installed.
2) Read the instructions
3) Start posting cows to slashdot

Example.
_____________
< Hello World >
-------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
MOOKORE - At the herd of the game!

Who to root for? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6579384)

RIAA vs. SBC?

Can't we just lock them all in a big cage, toss in a lot of explosives and high-powered weaponry, and go far away for a while? Or maybe stay close enough to watch?

SBC Fights RIAA Over DMCA (1)

hype7 (239530) | more than 11 years ago | (#6579388)

As reported by the SFG, the DMCA is not AOK with the SBC, and they're taking on the RIAA ASAP. AFAIK, this is not a LOL matter, but be warned, IANAL

TTYL

-- james
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?