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 Refuses To Name File-Sharing Users

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the customer-relations dept.

The Courts 373

securitas writes "The New York Times reports that Internet provider SBC Communications has refused to identify computer users accused by the RIAA of file-sharing copyrighted material. SBC is the largest high-speed DSL provider with over 3 million subscribers. It continues to refuse a response to the 300 subpoenas served by the RIAA despite a ruling against Verizon earlier this year. 'We are going to challenge every single one of these that they file until we are told that our position is wrong as a matter of law,' said James D. Ellis, general counsel for SBC. He continues, '...We've got a long heritage in which we have always taken a harsh and hard rule on protecting the privacy of our customers' information.' Mirrors in Tuscaloosa and Lakeland."

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

It's slashdotted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983279)

A widespread belief among faggots nowadays is that modern faggotry requires squadrons of faggots and wildly expensive equipment.

Slashdot faggot editor Michael shows off his nuclear anal probe, based on the plans of SCO's own Cmdr Taco, the inventor of Slashdot.

Michael, a baby-faced-cock-monkey fresh out of Faggot School, had almost the entire faggot faculty of Utah State University hovering (and arguing and cock sucking) over an anal aparatus he had cobbled together from parts salvaged from bath house and AIDS wards.

The apparatus is nothing less than the sine qua non of modern faggotry: a nuclear anal probe, based on the plans of Utah's own Cmdr Taco, the inventor of Slashdot and faggotry in general.

The anal probe sat on a table with an attached vacuum pump wheezing away. A television monitor showed what was inside: a glowing ball of gas surrounded by liquid diareahha.

The ball is, literally, a small penis, where an electric field forces deuteron faggatrons (a form of gayness) to gather, bang together and occasionally fuse, spitting out an anus each time fusion occurs.

"Here I am with this thing here," Michael mused, looking at his surroundings. "Who'da thought I'd be so gay?"

Michael and Taco are much alike. Both are (or were -- Cmdr Taco became Mrs Cmdr Taco in 2001) faggots. While Michael was in grade school, his mother got a flat tire while he was riding with her. He fixed it by selling himself for gay sex then using the money to pay a mechanic. For his part, Taco began improvising electric dildos at a young age. Both went on to put bigger and better things in their assholes.

"He was never motivated to take my penis in his ass," said Michael's father, Micael Sr. "It was really the gayness that motivated him."

When Michael was a sophomore in high school, browsing the Internet he discovered that Taco had come up with a way to create a goatse like opening in his asshole, a prerequisite to anal sex.

While it was not good for production of faggots (the source of much embarrassment to the VA Software in the dot com debacle in the early 2000s), Taco's design did emit faggotrons, a useful tool for commercial applications and scientific gayness.
USU freshman physics major Michael, demonstrated his experiment to mentor faggots professors Richard Stallman, and Alan (Anal) Cox.

"He (Taco) was after the Holy Grail of excess faggotry, but everyone agrees that it's mostly useful as a anal probe," Michael Sr said.

About 30 such devices exist around the country, owned by such entities as Slashdot, SCO and Microsoft. ("I bet I'm the only faggot that has one," Michael said.)

Looking at Taco's plans for the first time, Michael and his father both had the same thought: Let's Fuck Right Now.

They set to work. They found a bed in an Idaho Falls scrap metal yard. Michael built a giant dildo (which can be eased into any asshole) out of a few hundred spare CDs. They found a broken turbo anal pump lying forgotten at Timothy Industries.

Too poor to buy pricey male hookers, Michael bought a container of petroleum jelly, or faggot grease, for 20 bucks and came up with a way to make it a gas and get rid of the accompanying chunks of shit by passing it over heated anal rod.

Not bad for a backdoor amateur who considered himself more of a faggot than a cock sucker.

"I teased his anus now that he was now officially a faggot," Michael Sr said.

One professor Friday stood nervously away from Michaels's reactor -- which is notably free from any condoms -- but he needn't have worried Michaels detector measures 36 faggots per minute just in background anuses from space, and the device's usual output adds only four faggotry anuses per minute. Faggots in bath houses absorb much more than that.

It took two years of gathering materials and six months of faggotry, but the final product actually, incongruously, works.

"(This was) the day I achieved a felching reaction," Michael wrote next to a picture of the glowing cock and balls. "Probably the gayest thing I have ever seen."

Others thought it was cool, too. Michael began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Faggot Fair last May in Cleveland. He's now beginning work on a USU faggot degree.

"The whole thing combines faggotry and Slashdot," he said. "Put them all together and you come out with something pretty sweet: Anal sex with my father"

Cmdr Taco is said to be very proud.

Re:It's slashdotted (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983308)

Wow, you sir are an amazing troll. You actually spent the time writing this--and incorporating current news items, too! Bonus points! I wish every troll could be as cool as you!

THEY NAMED NAMES (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983280)

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/INSERT\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)__COCK_|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\_HERE_/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|PLACE|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_CHIN__\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|__HERE___|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/__YOUR__|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|__MOUTH__|____|_______|_________|x_ _
x__|_________/____HERE->|____|_______\_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Google Link (3, Informative)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983286)

As usual, the google link thwarting the NYtimes registration:

Click Here [nytimes.com]

Heh. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983296)

All of you who were *ahem* caught "sharing" MP3s of popular musicians and are subscribed to Time Warner's internet service.. well you all are going to get it up the ass. Time Warner is not only an ISP, but an RIAA member.

Re:Heh. (5, Informative)

p24t (312611) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983452)

You mean people with RoadRunner service? The very same service that uses "fast music downloads" as part of their advertising?

Mind you, they don't specify anything about the music downloads. They don't say that some music downloads are illegal. 12 year old girls are supposed to know all this stuff.

SBC's ad is even better (5, Interesting)

glamslam (535995) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983621)

from the article:

A record industry official pointed to a past print advertisement from SBC's Pacific Bell unit that read, in part: "Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever."

"Sure beats going to the record store," the advertisement concluded.

Ouch. That might come back to haunt them.

Re:Heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983632)

Actually, that's what TOS agreements are for. The 12 year old girl isn't supposed to know this, but the person paying the bill is the one responsible since they are providing the means and therefore violating that ISP's TOS agreement. I'm against the RIAA harassing 12 year olds as much as the next guy, but at least try and understand that ISPs pute contracts in place that state exactly that. It would suprise me if there was an ISP that didn't state use of their service to conduct an illegal activity (such as obtaining something for which you do not have a license) violates the TOS agreement.

As far as the advertisement goes, they can claim whatever they want in their advertising, so long as it's not false. There are plenty of people out there that just want their stuff heard/seen/used, and who aren't part of the riaa/mpaa/bsa/spa/etc. So I see no problem with their advertisement. I don't like the RIAA's business practices, I think they need to change or they're going to flop, but I know even very basic, non-restrictive, ISPs have TOS agreements to cover their asses at the very least.

That being said, it's good to see more ISPs defending their customer's privacy. They could just as easily turn over the names without having to be asked twice, and in turn, screw the hell out of their customers. Good for them. I know I'm moving off campus next year because my university was one of the universities that agreed to turn over all students names that the RIAA asked for. If I take the slower connection, I'll actually get a faster connection thanks to packet shaping. And I'll be able to do such bandwidth consuming things as transfer my system backups from room to room, net install Debian, and host a game server without getting my connection shut off...

All great things (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983300)

All great things must cum out an end.....

Verisign has Crossed the Line (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983303)

Every so-called "computer geek" has no doubt had the pleasure of dealing with a user who is convinced that the entire Internet runs off of a central "Internet server". How many times have you heard "I can't get my email, the Internet server must be down!" (Okay, I'll avoid pointing out the sheepish look on the guy in the back who has uttered those words himself.) It's from this little piece of technical support lore that my friends and I have a running joke that I run the "Internet server" (for our group, of course) and every time it's unreachable for some reason or another, we tell each other, "the Internet server's down!"

So what am I trying to get to? Well, as of 20:00 EDT time on Monday, September 15, 2003, there is now an "Internet server". Its name is sitefinder.verisign.com, currently found at the IP address of 64.94.110.11. Every request for an Internet domain name that doesn't exist, has expired, or is simply misspelled, will be answered with this magical site. What does this mean? Why is this bad? In order to answer these questions we have to first take a step back and examine the structure upon which the Internet is built, the Domain Name Service (DNS). Those of you with a working knowledge of DNS can nap through the next few paragraphs; you'll be interested in what VeriSign has broken with their stroke of genius, which I'll cover in a bit.

Read more...
http://www.haque.net/verisign_dns_rant.ph p

Original Slashdot.org story...
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/16/00 34210.shtm l?tid=126&tid=95&tid=98&tid=99

Google news....
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&editio n=us&q=ver isign

[delete any spaces the slashbot filter may add into the mix]

Spared CDs (-1, Offtopic)

Harry the Dirty Dog (306418) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983304)

From the article:
Craig build a neutron modulator ... out of a few hundred spare CDs

Build your own fusion reactor out of old AOL CDs!

Harry.

Re:Spared CDs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983310)

wow, way to try and be funny. faggot.

privacy value (5, Funny)

Neppy (673459) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983305)

Its a good thing user privacy isn't worthless to everyone; just the government and microsoft.

Re:privacy value (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983326)

yet another blame it on M$ reply from a slashdot zealot! fag

Re:privacy value (5, Interesting)

dknuth (688847) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983489)

I distinctly remember MS in the mid-90's standing up to the Fed Gov't over giving up their MS Exchange encryption keys or they wouldn't be allow to export their Exchange software (so the federales could snoop the new medium at will). No look what legal crap the've been in since. IBM gave up their Notes encryption keys without hesitation and Gates was critical of them for that.

Re:privacy value (-1, Redundant)

dknuth (688847) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983499)

I distinctly remember MS in the mid-90's standing up to the Fed Gov't over giving up their MS Exchange encryption keys or they wouldn't be allow to export their Exchange software (so the federales could snoop the new medium at will). No look what legal crap the've been in since. IBM gave up their Notes encryption keys without hesitation and Gates was critical of them for that.

Re:privacy value (1)

skinfitz (564041) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983609)

There's that word again - privawhat?

Ahh crap my implanted RFID tags are itching again. Fortunately if you scratch your forhead with the palm of your right hand you can scratch them both at once.

good news for the consumer (5, Interesting)

micronix1 (590179) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983306)

it's nice to know that some major corporations are opposing the actions of the recording industry where the average person is usually powerless. what other internet service providers are chosing to fight the RIAA instead of just giving in?

Re:good news for the consumer (5, Informative)

CodePyro (627236) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983462)

I know verizon is still fighting RIAA. And i know that comcast and some other cable companies said that they would cooperate with RIAA.

Comcast has had the most subpeonas sent to it by RIAA and they are #1 on thier hitlist. Real people are bieng affected here. For example there was a case with the mother of 4 who doesn't even have enough money for an attorney.(you think she will be sending her kids to college if riaa bankrupts her)What does RIAA gain out of it?? Some extra revenue so the ridicuosly wealthy singers can support thier drug habit and thier trips to space.

http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195 ,3 484600,00.html

Verizon is dead set against it.
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/30754 51
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/04/25/1614244.s html ?tid=158

RIAA can't keep fighting all these companies and the negative publicity its recieving...P2P network will get more sophisticated and secure...as many as said in the past RIAA needs to change thier business models..thats the only way to combat piracy...piracy has been around for as long as there was any type of trade...even coporations/organizations larger than RIAA have to deal with piracy but they do it by changing thier business model...gaming companies(ie blizzard) started offering online subscriptions which make the user more inclined to buy the game instead of pirating it...M$ started offering...well thats sort of a bad example...but even they dont use thier windowsupdate site to check if your cdkey is valid...RIAA often argues that "you can't compete with free" but that is wrong...people buy botteled water...they buy gorumet coffee from startbucks instead of the free cup they can get at work...hell people even buy M$ windows over linux...anways what i'm trying to say is you can compete with free if the incentive is there...riaa needs to change thier business model and offer these incentives....

Re:good news for the consumer (2, Interesting)

hamster foo (697718) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983602)

Ya know, it's really getting old hearing of these cases of people that are soooo poor they can't afford to buy this or that, but somehow manage to find it in their budget to pay for a broadband connection. I have little sympathy for the financial situation of a mom with 4 kids that's having a hard time making ends meet or a mom with a 12 year old living in public housing who somehow find the money to spend on something as frivalous as a broadband connection. While I don't necessarily like the stance the RIAA is taking, I'm pretty sure they didn't have the financial records of everybody they have filed claims against.

I agree that they should change their business model, but I don't think that means they shouldn't persue people they deem to be pirating or infringing upon their copyrights. Would you say the same thing about people distributing tapes on the street? Should they just change their model and not persue stopping that form of piracy? From their standpoint, regardless of whether they change their business model to take better advantage of the internet, people distributing music for free are still, in their view, costing them money.

"they dont use thier windowsupdate site to check if your cdkey is valid"

I'm pretty sure I had Windows Update refuse to update my girlfriend's computer for that very reason the other day. And unless something has changed recently, most game distributors still go to lengths to include keys and other anti-piracy mechanisms in their products. So they are not just ignoring the piracy issue.

"people buy botteled water...they buy gorumet coffee from startbucks instead of the free cup they can get at work...hell people even buy M$ windows over linux"

All these examples differ from the music situation in that every product you listed is perceived by the consumer buying it to be better than the alternative and thereby worth their money. That's a key point the product itself and not some service offered with the product is perceived to be better. The music industry really can't offer that for the average consumer. Most consumers can't tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and the same track playing from a cd. The consumers that can and care are already buying cds. Yes, they can offer services and ease of access and a lot of other things that I'm sure I can't even think of, but they can't actually offer a better product in most consumers eyes.

Having said all that, I doubt this will serve the RIAA well. I don't believe that file sharing is the major impact on the declining income of the music industry, and I doubt that the RIAA will profit in the long run from these actions. Perhaps they should just take this as a subtle hint that change is needed. Lower prices, better music, and easier access would go a long way to curbing their declining revenue.

Re:good news for the consumer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983640)

Would you say the same thing about people distributing tapes on the street?
If they're giving the tapes away for free, then it is completely legal and protected under fair use.

Re:good news for the consumer (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983650)

>but even they dont use thier windowsupdate site to check if your cdkey is valid Try installing XP SP1 with a known bad key.

Oh the precious irony (5, Insightful)

KU_Fletch (678324) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983317)

Definition of irony: a company formed from the dissolution of a monopoly talking about protecting it's customer's rights.

Re:Oh the precious irony (2, Informative)

KarmaOverDogma (681451) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983382)

I agree completely, especially when you look at the record of SBC's customer happiness factor in general, and some of their less-than-ethical business practices here in Ohio (so bad that even the state got mad).

This is a wonderfully pleasant surprise from SBC.
.

dissolution? (5, Informative)

danielsfca2 (696792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983430)

formed from the dissolution of a monopoly

Companies of SBC:

Pacific Bell + Nevada Bell = Pacific Telesis

Illinois Bell + Indiana Bell + Michigan Bell + Ohio Bell + Wisconsin Bell = Ameritech

Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET)

Southwestern Bell

Pacific Telesis + Ameritech + SNET + Southwestern Bell = SBC.

Sounds to me like SBC is more like a partial re-assembly of the original monopoly.

Not that I don't respect SBC [slashdot.org] big-time for this decision.

(Source of data: US FCC, http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/carrier_filing_histor y/COSA_History/sbtr.htm [fcc.gov] )

The same Monopoly that ... (1)

tqft (619476) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983476)

told the FBI for years they could not do some things with phone calls (reverse trace I think - ie this number was called at time x - where did it come from) for technical reasons when they could just that it was too much work for them. This was in 60's I think. I read this about 15 years ago so please be gentle with if I got the details wrong. And no I don't remember the book.

Re:dissolution? (1)

PatJensen (170806) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983535)

You've forgot:

ASI - Advanced Solutions Inc. - SBC ATM and Frame backbone provider
SBCIS [sbcis.com] - Formerly Pacific Bell Internet
SBC DataComm [sbcdata.com] - Formerly Pacific Bell Network Integration

And there is also SBC Knowledge Ventures, the pseudo-company to deal with the Yahoo relationship.

-Pat

Re:Oh the precious irony (1)

draxredd (661953) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983637)

i thought irony was like goldy, but made of iron...

Bravo (4, Interesting)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983319)

In a world where the right to privacy is quickly giving way to nosier and nosier laws and regulations, it is quite refreshing to see a company with so much to lose fighting to maintain the privacy of their customers. Say what you will, but SBC is taking quite a risk.

Heh, I don't normally gush like this, but I have to say that I am honestly very impressed by this move. Unless this is just a ploy to gain more customers concerned with their KaZaA, er, habits. In that case, well, I'm still impressed. Brilliant marketing ploy!

Wait, SBC isn't actually OCP [movieprop.com] or anything is it? No? Okay cool. Power to the peop- er, to the customers!

Re:Bravo (1)

th3axe (690230) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983341)

Maybe so, but remeber a corp is only interested in one thing: the bottom line. The minute that they see profit to be made or it becomes cheaper to open up the logs, they'll do it.

It's a rare company that won't sell out its customers, and telecoms aren't renowned for their ethics. Slamming, routing dirty tricks, crappy service, etc.

Re:Bravo (5, Insightful)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983396)

I can't blame you for your cynicism - I share it in copious amounts, too. Any one of us could recount a dozen times a corporation has screwed someone over for the bottom line. However, in this scenario, I'm willing to give SBC the benefit of the doubt for now.

Of course SBC is banking on this helping their image with current and prospective customers. To think they are not at least glancing at the bottom line would be ludicrous. However, there is nothing tangible, at least in the short run, to be gained by going head to head with the RIAA. Yet, the risk is high. This is like pissing on the Don's shoes when the mob come calling for their protection money. There is no sure payoff here.

Perhaps, for once, a company actually does have its customers' rights in mind? Only time will tell. I'll keep an open mind until proven otherwise. Hopefully my brain won't fall out. Again. Damn cheap hats.

Re:Bravo (5, Funny)

computerlady (707043) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983412)

Perhaps, for once, a company actually does have its customers' rights in mind?

Or just maybe the CEO of SBC has 3,000 illegal MP3s on his hard drive?

Re:Bravo (2, Interesting)

ksg (174241) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983520)

SBC DSL may be annoying as hell to have with all the Yahoo! branding they attempt to stick on everything but thankfully they are willing to stand up the RIAA. I had my choice between SBC or Buckeye Cable [slashdot.org] for my broadband, looks like I choose well. *cackles*

Wow (1)

KFK - Wildcat (512842) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983320)

Incredible. That's the first time I've heard of an ISP actually caring about their customers.
They'll probably lose in court eventually, but it doesn't matter. More opposition to the RIAA is always good.
Maybe someday they'll realize they're against everyone, including businesses, not only their customers...

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983353)

I agree. Also, the recording industry wouldn't have this problem if the 1) Embraced new technology and means of distribution instead of trying to kill it and 2) didn't charge so much for CDs.

Sidenote: most new bands barely make squat off record sales anyways, so it's only the recording companies losing money

Sigh. (4, Funny)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983321)

I wish these guys served DSL where I live. It would mean I could get rid of the 'emergency Plan B' device I keep in my bedroom, one of those magnets they use to move cars.

I mean, it's great, and it's sure to work, but the switch is so close to my light switch.

Nice to see some balance... (4, Insightful)

metallicagoaltender (187235) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983322)

Not that it's going to stop the RIAA per se, but it's at least nice to see some ISPs making the RIAA work a little harder and waste a few more resources to sue people.

I'm not against chronic lawbreakers to face the consequences of their actions, but I would think (hope?) that better challengers from ISPs would make the RIAA think twice about being more heavy-handed than they need to be, and encourage them to pick their targets for lawsuits more wisely.

Damn!! (0, Offtopic)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983327)

The terrorists have won!

Re:Damn!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983397)

Off Topic?

How about Flame Bait!

Google's little laugh (-1, Offtopic)

iamacat (583406) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983525)

If you search for Kazaalite, it removes some results and then has a link to the DMCA complaint from Sherman networks that contains the exact list of sites that are supposed to be blocked. Basically, telling us which sites are good.

Of course, yahoo and altavista still return a pleanty of matches, including dangerous and misleading ones like this one [mp3downloadhq.com] .

Why would anyone want to use kazaa lite anyway when Limewire is open source and can be verified to not contain any spyware, hidden P2P networks or forced upgrades?

Re:Google's little laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983611)

Ok, getting a little off but:
from that site's(mp3downloadhq.com) Terms:
The Materials on the Site may not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way...


Doesn't that sound like it goes against their terms to recieve the stuff from them?

Re:Google's little laugh (2, Interesting)

casuist99 (263701) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983627)

I don't know what your searches have been returning, but ever since I read about this and tried it for myself, I've had no problem finding the kazaa-lite links from a simple google search. I understand what everyone is talking about, but I have no problem myself. Besides pr0n and illegal mp3s, I very much understand the uses of p2p software like Kazaa. Hats off to SBC for at least trying to make the RIAA prove their case as a point of law. Hope it works.

In the meantime, if you want good, legal, high-quality indy (non-RIAA) mp3s, try http://www.dmusic.com. Nice stuff.

well done (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983328)

three cheers for SBC!

about time! (3, Insightful)

c4ffeine (705293) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983329)

Finally, someone has the balls to try to stop the RIAA. So much for their legal tactic of "let's sue and let them settle for only 10k and their first born son". It only everyone else would challenge their abuse of the legal system, they would have been foiled by now. What we need is an organization for the purpose of hiring lawyers to screw oer the RIAA. Imagine the settlements and awards you would get...

Re:about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983528)

After the way lawyers get treated in Slashdot threads, I would be surprised if they knowingly took a case from anyone here.

Keeping Logs (5, Interesting)

th3axe (690230) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983330)

So, what if an ISP has a policy of trashing any logs with personal information? Maybe this is a selling point for smaller ISPs. They could track traffic for performance purposes, but once the info's in the DB, trash the data.

I can see the ad now: "Use PrivCorp ISP. We don't care what you do, and the RIAA won't find out either. You just need to pay by the meg."

Re:Keeping Logs (1)

stephens_domain (679473) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983492)

You have to be carefull though. As I understand things, if you know something may be required/requested as evidence, it is illegal to destroy it. Obviously IANAL.

Re:Keeping Logs (2, Informative)

Night Goat (18437) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983559)

I think the case has to already have been brought for the destruction of the logs to be illegal. So if the ISP was started with quick destruction of logs in mind, it should work. In fact, Easynews is a Usenet ISP which tries to keep as few logs as possible to protect its customers.

ARGH!!! My eyes! (-1, Offtopic)

Ignis Flatus (689403) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983331)

Will Slashdot please turn in they guy beneath my threshold that posted the goatsex ascii porn?

Re:ARGH!!! My eyes! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983512)

But wouldn't that be violating the privacy of the guy who posted it? Ahh.. the irony!

Good news from SBC but... (4, Insightful)

StandardCell (589682) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983332)

I suspect this has more to do with retaining customers already "file sharing" and avoiding bad PR than it does to be protecting customer privacy [com.com] .

Jesus, I'm conflicted. (-1, Flamebait)

the gnat (153162) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983334)

Pure evil vs. pure evil. I'm not sure who to root for. Maybe we'll all get lucky and they'll bankrupt each other with skyrocketing legal fees.

Re:Jesus, I'm conflicted. (3, Insightful)

jpu8086 (682572) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983585)

Dude, companies are not evil. Just the lawyers that run them are.

So, in your rejoicing of the possibility of both companies going bankrupt, you forget that lawyers (the greatest evil) are getting rich.

Lawyers get what they want -- always. Everyone else gets screwed.

Honestly.. (-1, Troll)

Trolling for Profit (686234) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983338)

I used to be all-out against DRM, but recently I've been disheartened by all the talk about abusing P2P services to distribute people's works without their consent. Likewise, I used to support EFF, but no longer. Every single article about the RIAA recently has at least several +5, Informative comments relating to the development of supposedly secure P2P systems in attempt to thwart the RIAA, or of the variety "I have a right to download whatever I want without consequences." It's sad. I won't be surprised if CDs and DVDs are replaced with media designed around DRM, and you know what? I won't care. In fact I'd support the artists and hardware manufacturers wholeheartedly. I know if I didn't read and hear about all the different ways to thwart the RIAA (i.e. legal tactics, encryption, tunnelling, etc), I'd say to hell with DRM. Sadly, it's just not that way.

Re:Honestly.. (1)

utd-blaze (654032) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983426)

DRM doesn't prevent file trading. All it takes is one person with a good sound card, a cd(drmed or not), and a little extra time on their hands to give any cd to the whole world on p2p. DRM only makes ripping slightly harder, preventing most normal people from doing what they want with music they paid for. So people who use p2p will have uncrippled versions of the songs people like you pay for. Right now you get a better version of your favorite song if you buy the cd than if you download it for free. DRM reverses that inequality. Just when you think the RIAA have finished digging their own grave, they go find a bigger shovel.

Nice troll. (1)

Max Threshold (540114) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983574)

I'll bite.

I won't be surprised if CDs and DVDs are replaced with media designed around DRM, and you know what? I won't care.

Neither would I. By then, the P2P networks will be full of legally redistributable music from independent artists. And I'll continue to buy home-burned discs from the local scene. Fuck the RIAA! Fuck capitalism! Muahahahaha!

Re:Honestly.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983638)

" and you know what? I won't care."

fine, if you have kids or plan to.... make sure you get in line early when chip implants become a requirement. that way you and your kids can become property of the state.

Chain of suing? (2, Insightful)

SoVi3t (633947) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983345)

so now the RIAA will sue them, just to sue the ppl downloading songs from kazaa....ugh, how much longer can the RIAA afford to keep suing people. I think they're single handedly keeping half the lawyers in business!

Re:Chain of suing? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983413)

no, RIAA is only filing paperwork. That's done by law clerks. The targets (12 yo girls included) fold like a cheap umbrella, mail their check to RIAA, whereupon it is cashed by a receptionist. The number of billable lawyer hours is splendidly low. They learned the game from DirecTV. People who try to challenge them on it will pay through the nose, easily covering the attorney fees.

At least another ISP is standing up (5, Insightful)

fox2mike (706370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983349)

The USA was the first country in the world to address Cyberstalking as a serious issue & get laws effectively punishing the same. It is really sad to see the same lawmakers give such sweeping powers to the DMCA, wherein any tom dick & harry can walk in & say "Mr.X stole my copyrighted work, I need to serve him a subpeona" & this can be handed out by a clerk in the court, without any form of checking as to who the person requsting the subpeona actually is & what his/her intentions are... how dumb can you get ?

I sincerely am hoping that this ISP wins the case/the courts wake up & see what the actual picture is.

Ulterior motives (4, Insightful)

DeathPenguin (449875) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983355)

Somehow, I'm more willing to believe that the whole protection of privacy thing is a PR hoax and that they are really worried about the extra operational overhead necessary to hand the RIAA the information it needs. I mean, figuring out who had which IP and when in an ISP as big as SBC probably isn't a trivial task.

However, I think SBC is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Painting the RIAA as the evil organization trying to invade your privacy is definitely a good thing, since that's what they're trying to do.

And heck, who doesn't love the irony of using one underhanded business tactic to undermine another underhanded business tactic? RIAA wanted to get lawyers involved, and now they find themselves fighting 800lb gorillas rather than poor students.

Re:Ulterior motives (1)

fox2mike (706370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983385)

Operational overhead or not, how many ISP have protested against this ? I still remember a case (slighty diff context) when Yahoo refused to give out member details in court, as it was adhering to its policies. Just coz the govt is bullying the ISPs to part with the info, shouldn't mean they should just give in. If every ISP protested, the lawmakers would probably have some sense & re-think what they are doing. As of now only 2 have stood up & firmly said No. To me it shows atleast someone actually cares...& is ready to fight out dumb laws.

Re:Ulterior motives (1)

stephens_domain (679473) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983504)

What about the legal costs in fighting this? They will probably blow your "operational overhead" out of the water. While this would be a lot of data to sort through, if they have the data in a form that can be mined for the requested information, it will just not be that difficult. It's not like they track IPs by first names on PostIts.

Re:Ulterior motives (1)

tesmako (602075) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983552)

Unlikely that you will ever see a company do something out of the goodness of their soul (on account of not having a soul) so I think that a company doing the right thing because it is good PR is about as close to foing the right thing for the right reason as one gets.

Why are they doing this... bandwidth charges? (5, Informative)

a.koepke (688359) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983362)

I was reading the article and this really struck me

A record industry official pointed to a past print advertisement from SBC's Pacific Bell unit that read, in part: "Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever."

"Sure beats going to the record store," the advertisement concluded.

-- snip --

Matthew J. Oppenheim, the trade group's senior vice president for business and legal affairs, said the ad was important because it suggested a strong motive for SBC's position. "SBC believes that free music drives its business,"


Hmmm... I guess they would make quite a bit of money from the excess bandwidth charges from people who download heaps of music. Certainly that would be a strong motive to take this stance, money is a strong motive for a lot of things.

Also.. it may be unrelated but their share price [marketwatch.com] is up $0.35 :)

Re:Why are they doing this... bandwidth charges? (4, Informative)

descentr (296258) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983472)

I've had SBC DSL service for 4 years, and at least during that time SBC has not had any kind of bandwidth limitation or fee.

Re:Why are they doing this... bandwidth charges? (4, Informative)

descentr (296258) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983507)

Just to make this perfectly clear, here's a link to SBC's Terms of Service [yahoo.com] . Sharing copyrighted material is obviously prohibited, but there are no fines for excessive bandwidth usage and no allowance for them in the TOS.

Re:Why are they doing this... bandwidth charges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983526)

Hmmm... I guess they would make quite a bit of money from the excess bandwidth charges from people who download heaps of music. Certainly that would be a strong motive to take this stance, money is a strong motive for a lot of things.

I have been a DSL customer of SBC's (Pacbell) for about 5 years now and I have never heard of bandwidth caps. They just about always set their customers up at 1.5Mbps download 128kbps upload (unless their package states otherwise) and I really couldn't see them capping a customer below that unless there are line problems. I have been using P2P on their service and downloaded about 10GB and uploaded almost half as much in less than a week span without ever having any problems.

Hell, after reading this article, I almost want to go back and share all my music - but I think I will hold off.

It's the elephant in the room (3, Informative)

poptones (653660) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983530)

And SBC wants to be able to talk about it. I think it's fucking absurd that we should be eleventh on the list and be tethered to a phone system (and soon an HDTV system) that is completely unique in the world. It's technological isolationism, and it's biting us in the ass. Laws like this one just add weight to that burden.

If you don't do a lot of file sharing why do you need broadband? To have the convenience of never having to tie up the phone line? Forget it - I can wire this entire rural village with "broadband." We don't get any other form of broadband out here but if no one changed their online habits I could funnel every one of those wireless users through a 128K ISDN line and no one would complain.

File sharing is the only reason to have broadband. Well, actually, buying movie downloads would be a great application, but Hollywood refuses to go there. And legally downloading music would be another great app, but thanks to our antiquated legal system kept fat by dollars from hundreds of lobbyists, we won't have that, either. the thing is...

"Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever."

I can point you to a half dozen russian sites where, for $20 a month, you can get on legal on-demand MP3 downloads of just about any popular artist. That includes lots of Russian artists you've prbably never heard of, but it also includes Britney and Madonna and Christina and all the rest. These sites are operated completely legally, paying royalties to the russian licensing agency (ROMS) responsible for copyrighted "multimedia" works. So, technically, the above statement is 100% true and can be done legally and in a very cost effective fashion (how about a dime a song for 256kbps?).

But you're not likely to hear about this from Hollywood. Doesn't anyone wonder why Hollywood isn't throwing giant canninption fits over these sites offering legal downloads (for years now) to anyone with a Franklin in their Paypal account?

Hollywood isn't going to mention these legal services because they would risk further losing control of the market. Imagine if word got around that you could go online and pick any CD you want, select the level of quality you want, and download it from a completely legal website!

It's the elephant in the room. The record industry zoots don't want to talk about it, the lobbyists and lawyers don't want to talk about it, and the only way they know to keep the discussion stifled is to throw around the red paint of piracy. You think the record industry wants this case to actually go to court? And have their entire case mooted when all [mp3search.ru] this [mp3zzz.ru] becomes a matter of public record?

Re:It's the elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983663)

play more video games. Honestly you will realize fps games are no fun at 56k. That is a good reason for broadband, I don't know what you think about lag with satellite and wireless, but if you hooked everyone up through a single isdn line I'm pretty sure the ping would be bad..

Re:Why are they doing this... bandwidth charges? (2, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983575)

"Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever."

It's just sad that, whenever MP3 or downloading music comes up, people instantly assume you are talking about copyright infringement, and not about the MILLIONS upon millions of freely and legally downloadable MP3s available. Or perhaps they are talking about legally purchased music files.

First "hacker", now "mp3". Pretty soon, every possible technical term will have a negative connotation to it.

This is 1/SCO (5, Insightful)

dudle (93939) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983370)

SBC is doing the same thing that SCO is doing, only in reverse. Read on and you'll see what I mean.

There is a saying in the PR industry that goes something like this: "Every PR is good PR". The attacks that SCO has made against us has been one of the best demonstrations of this saying. Even though they showed a face of humanity that would make most criminals throw up, their stock went up substantialy and the officers made some serious cash.

Now look at what SBC is doing

IANAL, nevertheless I believe SBC doesn't stand a chance in court. They know it. Their General Counsel has huge balls but I think he knows that this is a great publicity. GREAT publicity.

At a time of software patents, monopolies held by incompetents and failing companies trying to kill Open Source, it sure feels good to see someone doing The Right Thing. Or at least it would seem.

After reading this story, I would switch to SBC if they covered my area ...

What about you?

This matters to me. (2, Insightful)

danielsfca2 (696792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983371)

As someone who never used to have any significant amount of respect for SBC (my "local" telco), this decision gives me much more respect for them. This will give them an advantage next time I change my broadband, local, local toll, and long distance service. (Currently I only get my $10 worth of local service from SBC.)

Hm, and they just called me today to try to sell me LT and LD service.

makes you wonder.... (5, Insightful)

turvalon (668877) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983374)

The article said that Verizon kept its log files indefinitely where as others may have kept logs for 30 days meaning those other companies wouldn't be able to provide any information if legal battles took the courts over that amount of time. I wonder if companies like SBC start gaining customers because of these practices if other companies would jump onboard.

Good move for SBC (4, Insightful)

neyneyjung (704430) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983380)

It's a good PR for them since they will gain nothing giving RIAA their customer list w/o a fight (even worse if people know about it). And they also have deep enough pocket to pay for legal fees which are more likly to be even when more ppl switch to SBC for their piece of mind and just to piss RIAA off.

Title is misleading (-1, Troll)

Eponymous Cowboy (706996) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983388)

the /. editors got suckered on this one - if you RTFA you'll see that SBC isn't actually a DSL provider or Internet provider at all. What it is is a telephone company. While not actually DSL, telephone holds some promise for communication. However, it is - as the article states - useful as a way to dial AOL. That's mostly what SBC has accomplished - NOT DSL [slashdot.org] .

Re:Title is misleading (1)

turvalon (668877) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983404)

Then how come when I go here [sbc.com] I can sign up for SCB dsl?

Re:Title is misleading (3, Funny)

MukiMuki (692124) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983425)

Holy crap, really? Jesus, who've I been paying $50 a month for the last two years to, then?

And then, just who the HELL IS GIVING ME INTERNET ACCESS?!?!?!?! ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

:: crawls into the fetal position and shivers.... ::

OH MY GOD, THEY EVEN HAVE THEIR LOGO ON MY BILL!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!

nice (3, Funny)

00RUSS (549125) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983389)

Nice to know some ISP's still have balls. I dont see why ISP's tend to upgrade from FreeInformation 1.0 to Profiteering Bafoon 2.0 and now load the corprate slave modules.

Isn't there a way to spoof IP from a cable modem? (3, Interesting)

iamacat (583406) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983402)

Basically, request an address from DHCP and then use another one. Or spoof packets from my neighbors PC. Maybe some simple things are blocked, but I don't feel cable modem network is especially secure. At least its not using secure IP and everyone gets to see everyone's packets with tcpdump.

Anyway, if there are some known hacks, won't it be very easy to defend against RIAAs lawsuit by saying it wasn't you?

Re:Isn't there a way to spoof IP from a cable mode (4, Informative)

phauxfinnish (698087) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983556)

Issue 19:4 [2600.com] of 2600 [2600.org] had an article you may be interested in called DHCP is your friend!

It's a little long to type up here, but I can give you the jist of the article. Basically it describes a way of getting all the active MAC address (of Windows machines) on your subnet by performing a portscan on Netbios (port 139), and using those (ifconfig in linux or perhaps MAC address cloning on you linksys router) to register an IP thru DHCP.

Since most Cable ISPs require the MAC of the connecting device to be registered, you need a vaild one. Any thing you do with an IP registered under an assumed MAC gets blamed on the person with the MAC you stole.

Thats the theory anyway. Could be traced, but probably enough to get you off the hook.

Re:Isn't there a way to spoof IP from a cable mode (1)

W32.Klez.A (656478) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983614)

I know that with my ISP, as long as I keep the same MAC I keep the same IP. The couple of times I've changed IPs, all I had to do was take advantage of MAC address cloning.

SBC's ad (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983409)

"Download all the music you like. And all the music you sort of, kind of, maybe even a little bit like. Go MP3 crazy. Try new music. Build a song library. Whatever."

"Sure beats going to the record store,"

Read between the lines (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983418)

So this ISP has announced that they refuse to disclose the names of their customers that have quite possibly (99% chance) broken the law?

Bottom line: Publicity stunt aimed at gaining popularity and consumer confidence by pandering to the most prevelant public opinion - regardless of righteousness. This ISp cares about generating profit, not the privacy of their customers. Rest assured that RIAA lawyers are already in talks with the ISP over possible compensation for the release of the names. Once a satisfactory amount is agreed upon, the customer information will be given up.

CYA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983420)

I think SBC is trying to cover their own ass.
I use SBC and so far I have not received any information regarding not downloading mp3s and other facts. I only receive my monthly bill. I would guess a customer can blame SBC for not taking some responsibility of informing them regarding this. As ludicrous as that sounds it can happen.

W00t for SBC corp! (3, Interesting)

zealotasd (700001) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983423)

SBC's general council has obviously had some council! They are not disagreeing with the RIAA; merely conditionaly agreeing with the RIAA upon proof of claim. For those of you sovereignty-type people, perhaps you would piss your pants to discover that while SBC is conditionaly agreeing to the RIAA, that subscribers to SBC are actualy vulnerable by acting in a Public/Body Corporate capacity and that SBC is not Private as it is governed by the FCC. The content of the RIAA's claims is not meritless, yet neither has the RIAA provided oath of office to represent the copyright and patent holders of the allegedly "infringed" data being processed through SBC's securitities (their data network services). Perhaps a lesson in copyright law should warrant that copyrights only apply to commercial actions. Using copyrighted and patented property is not against the law in the realm of non-commercial; be weary of using copyrighted software in a corporation, as corporations are inclusivly commercial in their nature. So, this leaves us whether SBC is liable for their (think commercial) corporation transporting copyrighted and patented tangible property to its subscribers. Be afraid for SBC...non-commercial use, need not apply unless by the RIAA's administration of force and intimidation [reference.com] has taken effect.

Question for slashdotters: are you a secured party [securedparty.org] ?

Is this the same SBC that (-1, Offtopic)

blair1q (305137) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983446)

forces all of its users signing up for Yahoo! accounts to use their full email address as their Yahoo nick?

Re:Is this the same SBC that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983570)

That must be the most unlikely thing I've heard on Slashdot in weeks. How would they do that? some sort of special deal with Yahoo to watch for their customers and apply special rules? I guess it could be done but why?

SBC actually doing something right!?!? (3, Informative)

MaximusMentiz (701590) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983456)

In the Chicago area, SBC just took over our phone service a few years back. They screwed everything and jacked up the prices. The people at SBC engage in some of the most underhanded busniess practice this side of the ENRON debacle. I do have to say that I am quite impressed by this move, though. But look for the hidden motives. Publicity is the name of the game here not some sense of loyalty they have to thier customers.

Re:SBC actually doing something right!?!? (1)

forkboy (8644) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983533)

I'm thinking this is a move to improve customer relations. They KNOW they have a bad reputation and have alienated many customers. This kind of decision seems uncharacteristic of them, given prior behavior, so it's logical to conclude that they're trying to get business back from their competitors who are more willing to sell you out to the RIAA.

Maybe a permutation on an old geek addage is in order:

Pick Two:
-quality of service
-low price
-privacy

I say this because it seems some of the better reputed ISPs for price and quality have been selling out their customers at the drop of a hat.

SBC and privacy? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6983457)

This is the same company that will sell local phone service customers' information unless the customer requests that they don't...even if the number is unlisted and even if the customer has subscribed to SBC's Privacy Manager service whose only function is to keep companies from buying the customer's information and calling them!

And even with your unlisted number...even with your Privacy Manager...even if you got in before the deadline and asked them not to sell your information...SBC'S TELEMARKETING DIVISION CAN STILL GET YOUR NUMBER AND BYPASS PRIVACY MANAGER!

SBC is doing this to get its name in the press. I don't have a problem with a company trying to make money but caring about customers is the last thing on their list.

So what the hell are you waiting for... (-1, Flamebait)

MoThugz (560556) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983466)

you lazy, whining American nerds... sign up with them NOW!

If I'm a lazy, whining American nerd, I would already have... Slashvertisements have that affect on me.

SBC (5, Interesting)

CySurflex (564206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983468)

I little OT but it comes around:

I'm an SBC DSL subscriber. Tonight I got a letter from a laywer suing SBC for class action lawsuit, claiming the service wasn't all it was claimed to be, and demanding one month free service or $20 for each participant. At first I thought "oh cool" and started filling out the form to be part of the lawsuit. After filling it out completely, and even addressing the letter, I realized I really was pretty satisfied with their service, and that this seems a little bit of a frivolous lawsuit. I tore up the letter and threw it out thinking "i'm not going to support a stupid lawsuit like this that will end up raising DSL prices for consumers".

After reading this story - I'm glad I did. Go SBC!

Re:SBC (2, Informative)

CySurflex (564206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983502)

Tonight I got a letter from a laywer suing SBC for class action lawsuit

If you're interested, you can read about the lawsuite here [bizjournals.com] and here [sanmateocountytimes.com] .

Re:SBC (1)

Galvatron (115029) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983554)

I agree. Aside from annoying delays in initial setup (mainly due to the fact that I assumed that they had to come to my apartment complex to turn it on, and none of the customer support people would tell me otherwise), speed was generally better than advertised, and service outages were no more frequent than what I experienced in my dorm at the university.

Yay SBC (3, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983477)

Doctor David Banner:
file trader, scientist;
searching for a way to download the hidden copyrighted files that all you little liars know you have.
Then an accidental overdose of typical SBC service alters his body chemistry.
And now, when David Banner hears any news about SBC,
whether it has to do with their patent abuse, layoffs and overseas outsourcing, or the general degradation in service quality that occurs whenever SBC takes over an outfit,
a startling metamorphosis occurs.

The Creature is driven by rage,
and wanted for sharing a file he didn't upload.
David Banner is believed to be dead,
and he must let the world think that he is dead because those bastards can sue you for $100,000 per copyright violation,
until he can find a way to control the raging spirit that dwells within him...

But now David's eyebrows are merely raised in suspicion.
What is SBC's motive in acting in the interests of their customers?
What's in it for them? What are they up to?
The Creature does not understand.

Why not (2, Interesting)

stewwy (687854) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983482)

Don't know about the law in the states, but can the Isp not ask the RIAAssholes for a reasonable fee for doing the work of identifying their customers? I know your ale to ask for compensation in the UK for copliance with the data protection laws ( such as they are :( ) ...... I suggest a fee to the RIAA of $10,000 per identified customer

I :heart: SBC (-1, Redundant)

O.F. Fascist (198664) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983500)

I'm glad that SBC is willing to fuck over the RIAA for its own bottom line.

I hope SBC gets more pirating customers, and I hope the RIAA looses even more money.

I would much rather money be going into the telecommunication industry, rather than being spent on an industry that is merely here to entertain us.

Overloards (-1, Flamebait)

schnits0r (633893) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983542)

I, For one, Will greatly appretiate and welcome our new SBC overlords.

This might not be heroism, but marketting (2, Interesting)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6983555)

People who pay the money for bandwidth are a desire for internet providers. The ISPs who give up information at the drop of a hat look like wimps who have no loyalty to their customers. But this ISP might have a good idea hear. Spend some money on the lawyers so the customers think they're behind them. The RIAA will win eventually, but this is cheap and effective advertisment. I know I sound really cynical here, but I think there is some truth to it. But if I'm wrong and these people really want to make the RIAA work for something that morally yet legally isn't there, then right on!

Remember: P2P isn't money lost down the drain, it's shifted to high bandwidth providers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?