PDA

View Full Version : Verizion To Reveal Customers in Swapping Case!


MrMacMan
Jun 5, 2003, 05:02 PM
Well NYT has a story (free reg... as '/.' says 'yeah yeah yeah')
Over Here (if no reg, read it below) (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/technology/05VERI.html)

My idea, what the hell RIAA do your own dirty work, seriously a person got a couple files, ---- off.

They are picking on a user (now 4 users?) who swapped songs, god, please.

RIAA is scanning everyone and everything, heck they even are sending people letters to cease-and-desist, the article says that the professor was scanned and sent this because there software doesn't even get the file, it scans the name.

Gah, just so stupid, if they ever sue me for my location I will sue them for slander and prove that there are LEGAL downloads from un-signed bands or bands that put their works on P2P software!

Verizon to Reveal Customers in Piracy Case
By AMY HARMON



n a victory for the record industry, Verizon Communications said yesterday that it would turn over the names of four online subscribers accused of illegally copying music over the Internet to an industry trade group after a federal appeals court rejected its request for a delay pending a final decision in the case.

The ruling removes ? at least temporarily ? the presumed veil of anonymity from the millions of people who let other Internet users download copyrighted music from their personal computers using programs like KaZaA.

(--avert-- do you know safari shows the code when you copy the text...?)

It is also a blow to Internet service providers and privacy advocates who argue that the subpoena process used by the Recording Industry Association of America in seeking the names of digital music swappers violates the rights of Internet users.

"Verizon remains concerned that the R.I.A.A. and other copyright owners and people who are not copyright owners may abuse this process," said Sara Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for Verizon. "In light of the court's decision, it is time for Congress to become involved and offer a legislative solution."

The recording industry group lauded the decision.

"The Court of Appeals decision confirms our long-held position that music pirates must be held accountable for their actions and not be allowed to hide behind the company that provides their Internet service," said Cary Sherman, the president of the R.I.A.A. He said the industry looked forward "to Verizon's speedy compliance with this ruling."

While agreeing to turn the names over, Verizon will continue to challenge two rulings by a federal district judge who ordered the company to comply with subpoenas issued by the record industry group under a shortcut aimed at helping copyright owners fight digital piracy. The company argues that the process lends itself to abuses that could result in names of suspected copyright abusers being turned over without good cause. Under the rulings, an Internet provider can be forced to disclose the identity of its users without a judge's specific approval.

Ms. Deutsch, the Verizon lawyer, noted that the industry trade group apologized last month to Pennsylvania State University for sending a warning to the school's astronomy department demanding that songs by the musician Usher be removed.

It turned out the trade group's automated search program had matched files containing the name of a retired professor named Peter Usher and "mp3," the name of a popular music format, spurring the group to issue the erroneous cease-and-desist letter.

Web site owners also could use the process to get the names of people who visit their site for marketing purposes, privacy advocates said.

"The net effect of a decision like this one is to open the door for use of subpoenas for any purpose," said Marc Rotenberg, a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, adding, "Our sense is that this door shouldn't be open, at least not this wide."

Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, is circulating proposed legislation that would amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to require that a copyright holder file a lawsuit to learn the identity of an Internet user suspected of violating its copyright.

Verizon's appeal of the district court's ruling will be heard in September. But yesterday's decision by the appeals court may embolden those who want to contact suspected copyright violators or learn their identities to file lawsuits against them.

The record industry group, which holds online piracy largely responsible for falling sales of recorded music, says it intends to issue a "significant number" of subpoenas. Though it has so far stopped short of saying it will pursue legal action against any of the people identified through this process, it may decide to do so. It could also send warning letters to those people or submit their names to state or federal officials.

Ms. Deutsch said Verizon had already informed the two people whose information is the subject of its lawsuits against the recording industry group. The group has filed two additional subpoenas, and those subscribers have also been informed that their names are to be divulged.

Ms. Deutsch said at least one of the four had removed the KaZaA file-sharing program from his or her computer. Sharman Networks, the owner of KaZaA, which is fighting a lawsuit of its own brought by the recording industry association, declined to comment.

Michael Weiss, the chief executive of Streamcast Networks, which distributes another popular file-sharing program called Morpheus, said the decision would have little impact.

One frequent user of file-sharing software, who insisted on anonymity, said that the fear of being identified might cause some Internet users to think twice before making files available on their hard drives for others to copy.

"It will make people more cautious if they prosecute people to a point where a lot of names are being turned in," said this user, a health care worker in New York.

But others doubted the ruling would curtail the sharing of files.

"The technology will move faster than the court systems," said Jorge A. Gonzalez, the founder of Zeropaid.com, a repository of information for file-sharing software. "The new programs being developed are going to mask users. By the time Verizon has to start turning over a lot of names, the identities of users will be unknown."




I sense a RIAA hacking in 3...2...1...

Schiffi
Jun 5, 2003, 05:14 PM
Well, uh, look on the bright side; more iTunes Store sales.

trebblekicked
Jun 5, 2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I sense a RIAA hacking in 3...2...1...

LOL. the RIAA is screwed. they need to rethink their whole strategy. they will never make the same money they did in the price-gouging '90s. no amount of suing is going to change that. they could have made this work to their advantage, but they didn't, and now all they can seem to do is give more hackers more inspiration to do their stuff. i wonder what they've got in mind....


<EDIT> i really can't spell.

MrMacMan
Jun 5, 2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by trebblekicked
LOL. the RIAA is screwed. they need to rethink their whole strategy. they will never make the same money they did in the price-gouging '90s. no amount of suing is going to change that. they could have made this work to their advantage, but they didn't, and now all they can seem to do is give more hackers more inspiration to do their stuff. i wonder what they've got in mind....


<EDIT> i really can't spell.

haha, so true: but remember
They ARE running Windows 2000 and on a MS - IIS/5.0 Server, so once the next hack is out they will exploit.

They keep over charging and over charging... do I want to spent $25 on my fav band, they are my fav but $25, I don't have a job that is a lot for me.

donigian
Jun 5, 2003, 11:51 PM
This really sucks. I read today on C|Net that Verizon's request for a delay was denied. They have to turn over the guy's name immediately.

This shoots civil liberties on the Internet to hell. Sure, what he was doing was illegal (if he was distributing copyrighted material), but it is not Verizon's job to police its subscribers and shouldn't be forced to comply with every request the RIAA or MPAA makes into its subscribers. It will make Verizon look like a rat, even if they are ordered by the courts.

Simon Liquid
Jun 6, 2003, 12:53 AM
The RIAA want these people's names so they can sue them for massive and disproportionate damages like those college kids a while back. Then they'll settle for less, still probably too much, and set a precident to go after more people.

As far as I'm concerned, this is little better than blackmail. The RIAA seems to be trying to get themselves law-enforcement status, but with no oversight.

File sharing is wrong, yes. But I think that enforcing this should be the job of actual police and criminal courts, for several reasons.

Like it says in the constitution, punishments should be reasonable. Also, due process sort of exists in criminal court. It isn't so much a matter of a private citizen vs a team of highly paid lawyers, so you at least get a chance to prove your inocence.

zimv20
Jun 6, 2003, 12:56 AM
nuts. i read the title and thought it was about wife swapping.

caveman_uk
Jun 6, 2003, 03:19 AM
I'd like to offer the opinion that falling music sales have little to do with P2P and more to do with the quality (or lack of it) of most of the new music the labels release. I've only bought two or three CDs so far this year and I think only the Foo Fighters one was actually worth the money (it was 9 - $15 - the cheapest you can buy it)

DavidFDM
Jun 6, 2003, 08:41 AM
The odd thing about the music industry, unlike all others, is that the reduction in costs of production (CDs vs. tape, vinyl) has never been passed on to the consumer. My wife and I just bought a Honda Element, loaded with features that were previously only available on higher-end cars, due to consumer demand and the reduction in cost.

Music has actually become more expensive for no change in the product. I hate to boil it down to classifying music simply as a product but that is how the RIAA seems to treat it. I want to see CDs with bonus tracks, outtakes, live cuts and other cool features that we see regularly in DVDs. We as consumers expect this and the movie industry complies. It seems to me that we have had such low expectations of the recording industry for 30 years that they have become complacent.

jadariv
Jun 6, 2003, 02:04 PM
I'm not sure how to feel about these people. Personally, i don't see a problem with downloading the occasional song to sample that helps you make a decision whether or not to buy an album.

But these people who are recklessly collecting thousands of songs they didn't pay for and then distributing them to others. That seems pretty wrong and they should be punished.

As for the RIAA. My work is 90% in the music industry and i know a few of these executives and big wigs. I think that file-swapping is a scapegoat for falling sales. There simply is not the level of creative executives in the music industry as there were in past. For every Avril Lavigne, there are 10 knock offs. For every Linkin Park, there are 20 knock offs. It's just a flood of muck. No originality. There are only a handful of decent bands out there and even they only produce a few really good songs.

Really, only Eminem could put out an event album right now. Everybody else is to busy trying to find the new Eminem when they should be trying to find different types of talent.

Innovate, lower prices, give us reasons to buy CD's again. The big five record companies should send there main people for a weekend at Steve Jobs house. Maybe they would learn something.

MrMacMan
Jun 6, 2003, 03:23 PM
To me the exectives think this is really hurting them, it aint, really.

trebblekicked
Jun 6, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
To me the exectives think this is really hurting them, it aint, really.

my roomate uses limewire a lot. he downloads lots of crap he never listens to and would never buy in a million years. is he hurting the artists? he's certainly not going to go pay $17.00 for Chet Atkins and Mark Knopfeler's album.

i'm sure there are some people that steal stuff they actualy want, but the same thing could be said of CD burners and tape decks. The CD industry is really suffering becasue of two things right now:

1. music sucks. how many boy bands can you buy before you get sick of it? how much interesting, new music is coming from the big 5 (sans radiohead)?

2. people are done upgrading to cds. people spent tons of money buying old LP's on CD, and that trend is almost over. my dad has already bought a couple hundred cds he already had on vinyl. he has no plans to buy any more of his old albums on cd. and he doesn't have any p2p on his machine.

they're (RIAA) probably really uncofortable knowing that they can make no more money by reselling AACs or MP3s to people who can just rip their own CDs. oh well, like i said earlier, the RIAA had seven good years to develop an online solution for music, but they prefered infighting and bickering, so the web comunity just provided for itself.

MrMacMan
Jun 6, 2003, 08:30 PM
Its not even that people are done upgrading, it is that people are being hurt by the economy.

Seriously people don't need CD's it is an extra expense, so people cut it out of the budget, the RIAA doesn't get that.

Why is there a slight downturn?
IT MUST BE PIRACY!!!!

No, its the economy stupid.

coolsoldier
Jun 6, 2003, 10:17 PM
When I pirate songs, I always either buy the albums or delete them.
Even before napster, I didn't buy CDs unless I was absolutely sure that I would like several of the songs. Since I found LimeWire, I have purchased many more CDs. When napster first came into existence, I had, in the past decade, purchased 4 CDs.
Since then, I have purchased about 50. The record industry has sold (I figure) at least 46 CDs that they would not have if not for P2P.
Declining sales could be because:
-New Music Sucks (Opinion)
-There is no longer the variety in music that there once was. 'Genres' no longer exist, really, because most of the music from the "Big 5" sounds pretty much the same. People who don't like the one style just don't buy their music.
-CDs are ridiculously priced.
-The RIAA has alienated their customer base by making themselves the object of hatred.

It's worth noting that the first year that the RIAA started their legal maneuvering against napster, their CD sales actually Increased . Their overall profits went down slightly, but the only markets where sales went down were vinyl and cassette singles. Prior to their self-inflicted PR nightmare, CD sales CONTINUED TO INCREASE, despite the widespread use of P2P services.
It's also worth noting that their signifigant declines in marketshare did not occur until after we started to see economic troubles and that the record industry's overall profits have not decreased signifigantly more than the average across the market as a whole.

Whether they want to fight a battle of principle or not, I see P2P as a bad business move by the RIAA.

scem0
Jun 6, 2003, 10:39 PM
I feel no guilt downloading the songs of people who have more money then is good for them. If I downloaded a whole album by a band that isn't mainstream then I would feel some guilt.

RIAA sucks. :(

- scem0 http://www.blizzforums.com/images/smilies/twitch.gif

peterjhill
Jun 7, 2003, 06:20 AM
Good for the RIAA... I don't feel there are any civil liberties infringements here. The RIAA went through the courts and got a court order (much stronger than a subpoena for this case. That is pretty strong. Now, does this set a precedent that will allow them to only use a subpoena in the future to get information on the user?

Verizon did a great job in fighting the fight. They had to, since they know there are so many users who only get DSL so that they can use P2P apps. If the floodgates are opened on this, it will put alot of work on their staff to go through radius logs to find out which user was using which IP address at a specific time. I don't doubt that this will be a full time job, maybe more than one.

If someone shoplifts music off the Internet, they should be prepared for the consequences when the owner gets mad and takes them to court. My guess is that they are going after people with large collections of music with fast internet connections.

MrMacMan
Jun 7, 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by peterjhill
Good for the RIAA... I don't feel there are any civil liberties infringements here. The RIAA went through the courts and got a court order (much stronger than a subpoena for this case. That is pretty strong. Now, does this set a precedent that will allow them to only use a subpoena in the future to get information on the user?

Verizon did a great job in fighting the fight. They had to, since they know there are so many users who only get DSL so that they can use P2P apps. If the floodgates are opened on this, it will put alot of work on their staff to go through radius logs to find out which user was using which IP address at a specific time. I don't doubt that this will be a full time job, maybe more than one.

If someone shoplifts music off the Internet, they should be prepared for the consequences when the owner gets mad and takes them to court. My guess is that they are going after people with large collections of music with fast internet connections.

One person admited through anon that he downloaded 3 songs... 3 SONGS, and he was going to be charged... and he was.