Net Providers Must Turn You IN

Status
Not open for further replies.

AZTOY

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,078
Location
Fort Wainwright Alaska
Net Providers Must Help in Piracy Fight
Tue Jan 21, 6:56 PM ET

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Internet providers must abide by music industry requests to track down computer users who illegally download music, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a case that could dramatically increase online pirates' risk of being caught.

The decision by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates upheld the recording industry's powers under a 1998 law to compel Verizon Communications Inc. to identify one of its Internet subscribers who was suspected of illegally trading music or movies online. The music industry knew only a numerical Internet address this person was using.

The ruling means that consumers using dozens of popular Internet file-sharing programs can more easily be identified and tracked down by entertainment companies trying to prevent the illegal trading of movies and music. For consumers, even those hiding behind Internet aliases, that could result in warning letters, civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution.

"Just because you can doesn't mean it's legal to become a digital Johnny Appleseed," warned Michael McGuire, an industry analyst for Gartner Inc., a research firm in Stamford, Conn.

Verizon promised Tuesday to appeal and said it would not immediately provide its customer's identity. The ruling had "troubling ramifications" for future growth of the Internet, said Verizon's associate general counsel, Sarah B. Deutsch.


"The case clearly allows anyone who claims to be a copyright holder to make an allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private subscriber information without protections afforded by the courts," she said.


Deutsch said Verizon planned no immediate changes to disrupt sharing of computer files among its customers.


Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America , which won the case, said piracy is a "serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners, and the record companies have made great strides in addressing this problem by educating consumers and providing them with legitimate alternatives."

The judge acknowledged the case was an important test of subpoena powers Congress granted copyright holders under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The judge said that controversial 1998 law, enacted to uphold copyrights online, lets music companies force Internet providers to turn over the name of a suspected pirate upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's order.
Critics of the procedure said judges ought to be more directly involved, given the potential privacy issues of a corporation revealing personal information about customers amid an allegation of wrongdoing.

"This puts a huge burden on Internet service providers," said Harris Miller, head of the Washington-based Information Technology Association of America, a trade group. "It turns them into judge, jury and executioner just because someone makes an allegation about a problem."

In the past, the entertainment industry has acknowledged accusing one subscriber of illegally offering for download the movie "Harry Potter (news - web sites) and the Sorcerer's Stone," even though the computer file in question actually was a child's book report on the subject.

"There's almost no judicial supervision here," said Stewart Baker, who represented a trade group of Internet providers that sought to intervene in the case.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association, which fought the music industry on this issue, predicted its rival "will be cranking up its presses pretty quickly" to send threatening letters to Internet users sharing songs and movies.

"We're just sort of shaking our heads," said Will Rodger, a spokesman for the computer group, whose membership includes one firm, Streamcast, that creates file-sharing software. "This has the potential to really mushroom out of control, to be very burdensome."

During a contentious court hearing in October, the judge lamented ambiguities in the copyright act, saying Congress "could have made this statute clearer." At the time, the music industry said a ruling in its favor could result in warnings to scare Internet pirates into taking their collections offline.


"We would hope that the RIAA and other copyright holders would wait until this matter was decided by the Court of Appeals before flooding service providers with requests," Deutsch said.

The case arose from efforts by the recording association to track down a Verizon customer who was freely sharing copies of more than 600 songs by well-known artists.

Sherman said his organization, once it knows the Verizon customer's identity, would "let them know that what they are doing is illegal."

Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella (news - web sites), a person can find virtually any song or movie — sometimes even before it's released in stores — and download it for free. On a typical afternoon, about 3 million people are connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030121/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music_4
 
The case arose from efforts by the recording association to track down a Verizon customer who was freely sharing copies of more than 600 songs by well-known artists.

Solution: Don't download music you see on MTV and you should be just fine.
 
Amendment IV

The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularity describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



:confused: :confused: So, the sovereignty of a music company trumps the Constitution of the United States? :confused: :confused:
 
Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella (news - web sites), a person can find virtually any song or movie

I don't know who they're kidding. I have never found a movie that I was looking for. Just about any song, though. I'm talking about Kazaa.
 
Solution: Don't download music you see on MTV and you should be just fine.
Egad, why would I want to do that? I mean, seriously, have you heard the no-talent hack drek pouring out of MTV?

As for the lawsuit, it's nothing more than another attempt by the dinosaur RIAA to shut down innovation.

Instead of adapting their business model to the 21st century, they're laying on the ground, kicking their feet and screaming like an upset 2-year-old.
 
I haven't bought a new CD ever since the RIAA first went after Napster. It's been nothing but used CD's since then.

And, just because, almost all of my software is open source.

Databases are in MySql, office suite is OpenOffice. I use open source IDE's/compilers for my Java and C/C++ programming.
 
The question is...

If person A believes person B has committed a crime against A, A doesn't know who B is, and A knows person C knows who B is, doesn't A have the legal right to sue C for the identity of B so A can file charges against B?
 
People can recite the hard line on the intellectual property legal question..."just don't download..."

However, the music recording industry has helped bring it on itself, by a pricing structure that seems most disrespectful of its customer base. And its coming back to bite them. As the industry shifted from vinyl to CD, production costs plummeted, yet the industry decided to RAISE the cost of your average album from $5 (not too long ago), to $14-$16. Fully aware that the technology would make unauthorized copying within the reach of your average 7th grader. Add to that, RIAA police shaking down restaurants and bars, to "license" mere playing of background music; a seeming fixation of the current crop of recording stars to flaunt platinum excess...

I find myself having little sympathy.

Cable TV faced a similar pirating issue 15 years ago, and decided on a more customer friendly pricing strategy, based on unlimited access for a set fee. Cable piracy has been kept to manageable levels. RIAA needs to rethink their dependance on the legal system, and revamp their customer relationship, not prosecute their customers.
 
I don't like the cost of Ar-15's, so I guess that means I can pirate one, eh...

Put whatever excuses you want behind it but sharing something you have no right to share with others is wrong, and AGAINST THE LAW.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention illegal price fixing by record companies, to keep the price of CD's high... http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/01/1001music.html

I don't like the cost of Ar-15's, so I guess that means I can pirate one, eh...

Sure, If you have $1.5 million or more worth of nc machine tools, a distribution network, etc., you "can" pirate Colt's AR-15 to your hearts content. Just like Bushmaster, and various other companies have done. Being that the project was initially funded by dod, it has always been in the public sector. Maybe not a good example, but I think I get your point. My response: If AR-15's could be cloned by middle school students on their computers at home, how pointless would it be for the gun industry to expect that daddy government bring down the legal hammer on them?

As a strictly legal concept, you're right, Keith. As a practical matter, however, do you truly think the hard line approach will ultimately be successful? Esp. when there are alternatives out there that are win-win for everyone involved?
 
As a practical matter, however, do you truly think the hard line approach will ultimately be successful? Esp. when there are alternatives out there that are win-win for everyone involved?

So, because something can be done easily it's OK with you, even if it's illegal to do so???

The problem is you either respect the copyright laws, or you don't. Most of the people I've talked to who want to be able to "share/steal" music files, don't respect copyright laws to begin with. They don't have a problem with borrowing a friends CD and cutting a copy of it (or a few songs off it) for their own use. They certainly don't have any compunction against copying files onto their computer and letting anyone in the world steal them.

And they all use the same excuses, CD's should be cheaper, the music industry is ripping them off, I only want one song, etc, etc... Blah, blah, blah... They use some of the same excuses for software to.

Being a programmer and photographer, I respect copyrights, I certainly wouldn't want my code or images to be copied without my permission and act accordingly towards others property.

Do I think the music industry is shooting themselves in the foot with their efforts, sure. They ought to be finding a way to harness the internet as a method of distribution for music. But share/stealing their copyrighted material isn't helping them move towards that goal.
 
I look at this subject this way:

In the past, when the only way for artists/bands to get music distributed, was to sign up with a recording label, since the label had the studio, the publicity staff, and the production facilities to enable widespread distribution. The band would sign a contract, giving up all ownership rights to "their" stuff in order to get their music out.

Now, with the internet, bands can get their music out directly, without the middle man that, when boiled right down to it, record labels are.

This is why I get angry when I hear about the shennanigans that RIAA pulls, because we, the consumer, don't need them anymore.

As to the copyrights, for music, the copyrights should rest with the artist/band, not with the studio. Studio's owning the copyrights is another relic left over from when studios were the only means of distribution.

Look for RIAA to finally start to die off when a major artist, while between "contracts", decides to just put their stuff out there directly, and cut out the studio entirely.
 
Yes, it is true that the record companies are racketeering criminal bottom-feeding scum. That doesn't make it OK to steal from, not only them, but the artists themselves. The vast majority of artists are making next to nothing on these record sales. Most of them end up owing the record companies for the studio, pressing and distribution loans.

There is a problem with the recording industry, and the current trading/napster environment may be some poetic justice in a way. But that doesn't make it right.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
-- supposedly Hunter S. Thompson
- Gabe

PS: Don't confuse the 'studio' with the label. The label (record company) owns the copyrights, not the studio. The studio is where the record gets recorded, mixed and mastered. They only own the tapes until they get paid.
 
Why should anyone be allowed to hide behind the quasi-anonymity (sp?) of the Web when they're very likely breaking copyright laws?

The way I see it, if the person wasn't engaging in possibly criminal conduct, he/she/it wouldn't have to worry about Verizon coughing up the name.
 
The way I see it, if the person wasn't engaging in possibly criminal conduct, he/she/it wouldn't have to worry about Verizon coughing up the name.

Remember you said that when the question is about which gun (read antigovernment) boards you post to, or what financial transactions you may have conducted on line.
 
Our company which is a regional ISP/network provider, usually receives a few requests from the FBI, DoD and others, mostly the fed guys. Initially, I thought they were up to no good.. ;) I have known quite a few of 'em over the past years and made friends with a couple of 'em who shares the same interest in flying, they used to be the in the Airforce, took 'em up flying in my small twin. Anywho, if anybody wants the pdf version, email me and I will send it to you when I get back sometime next week.

DoD00024.gif

DoD00024_B.gif


"Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code Section 2703(f), this letter is a formal request for the preservation of all records and other evidence in your possession regarding the following [Internet Protocol address/xxxxxxx/xxxxx/xxxxxx/subscriber]...."

"....You are also requested not to disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber or any other person, other than as necessary to complete this request. This request should be completed without cancellation or suspension of any user accounts, or otherwise alert the subscriber, or user of these accounts as to preserve the files and records...."


Although, it said something about, not disclosing any information as to the existence of their request, Since this issue is closed and the BG arrested for his alleged crimes, I believe it is okay to post it, if you think otherwise then let me know.
 
If person A believes person B has committed a crime against A, A doesn't know who B is, and A knows person C knows who B is, doesn't A have the legal right to sue C for the identity of B so A can file charges against B?

I can't see why. Can you cite any legal basis for this?

Besides, these laws are stupid. It may be illegal, but that doesn't make it wrong.

The question is, do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our internet usage. I'd say we do, at least in respect to our true identity.
 
Okay, this is really simple. Internet file sharing of copyrighted material is illegal. Period. What most people who know nothing of the industry don't understand is that there are a lot of costs that are reflected in an end user purchase of a CD. Now I'm not saying that the cost of a cd isn't a bit inflated, but for those that aren't in the know are just that.

There are many costs in getting a cd to the end consumer. Just to list some: cost of recording and mixing album, cost of pressing thousands if not millions of copies, cost of distribution of said albums, cost of advertising said album (which includes press kits, press releases, press conference, release parties, travel costs, buying print ads, making music videos), pressing singles, band website, new equipment for band, living money for band while recording album, tour support, band merchandise, etc, etc.

All of these costs are then recoupable from the band's earnings. This is why bands try and tour as much as possible. So people will go out an buy the album, and so that they can make some money for themselves in turn.

Now the internets is a huge possible audience getter, but how many truely successful musicians have come from interenet exposure alone? None. Record companies have tried for years to offer downloadable music for a much reduced fee, but no one does that because they can get it for free by pirating it. Napster was created soley to pirate music and movies and anything else capable of being digitally transmitted including software. It was not created as some social software to bring the masses together or any such nonesense. These software offerings are pure piracy.

Now if you want to check out new music on the internet then go to a site that promotes that like MP3.com or garageband.com if it still exists. Those websites are there for the promotion of small bands and new music, not wholesale piracy. And if you still feel like the music industry is the big bad wolf, then I suggest you try working for free for about a year and see where you end up. I doubt you would do it, so don't think that others should either.

There are also taxes built into every piece of consumer equipment used for the recording of music and video that go directly back to the labels and studios (tv, movie). There has been ever since tape recorders first came into popularity for the same reasons that the industry is suing these file sharing companies. There are taxes on blank tapes, cd's, and dvd's as well. The only reason that this isn't considered the same as the tape issue is that one person can literally allow hundreds of thousands of people to copy a song, album, etc.; thus rendering such taxes useless.

Now should the gov't be able to find out who are breaking these laws en mass? I think they should since it has obviously not stopped companies from creating the software that allows users to talk directly to each other's IP's, which is not illegal. The only other possible way to keep the gov't from going after the end users would be for them to allow RIAA to charge all ISP's licensing fees like they do for restaraunts, stores, and any other place of business that uses copyrighted music as a main feature of such establishments.

And just for reference, I don't work for a label, never have and probably never will. But I do have a Bach. of Sci. in Recording Industry Business. I know more about the intimacies of the Napster case than most also because I helped prepare a few briefs for the case back in college for a couple of lawyers that were also my profs. I purchase all of my own cds, and don't earn a burner.
 
Well, if they're only after the 600 songs from the most popular artists, I'm safe! :D

Actually, what is the wording of said law? I wonder what's going to happen the first time someone is arrested for downloading some MP3s of songs from CDs that they already own? Is it illegal to download such copies or is it illegal to be in possession of it?
 
Since when does the cost to produce something have anything to do with it's value?

Value is determined by the market and the record companies have the right to sell the CDs for whatever they want.

You might as well get mad at Microsoft for selling Office for $400 when it's just a book and a couple lousy CD ROMs :p

CD sales are up, not down since file sharing has become popluar - the RIAA is not worried about trading as much as they are worried about an actual sea change in how we get our music.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top