RIAA sues Verizon

[bigpoppanils]

News > Technology

Protect subscriber or surrender pirate?

Music companies try to force Verizon to reveal name of alleged music swapper.

October 4, 2002: 6:06 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) - The music industry goes to court Friday to try to force an Internet service provider to identify a subscriber accused of illegally trading copyrighted songs, setting up a legal showdown that could indelibly alter the free-swapping culture that has been a signature of the Web's early years.

If successful, the suit against Verizon (VZ: Research, Estimates) would pave the way for ailing record companies to send out reams of cease-and-desist letters to alleged music pirates, scaring them into submission rather than going through the long process of suing each one in court.

Verizon general counsel Sarah Deutsch said a record industry victory would harm the privacy rights of Verizon subscribers and force Internet providers to give up the names of its customers without judicial review.

"There are plenty of companies that have business problems that would like to write a letter-writing campaign to hundreds of thousands of people," Deutsch said. "We'll be a turnstile."

The case, which will be decided in U.S. District Court here, is the music industry's latest attempt to clamp down on illegal file sharing. Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella, 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 were connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.

Verizon has already agreed to hand over the subscriber's name if the music industry trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America, files a separate "John Doe" suit against the subscriber. The RIAA refused. Top RIAA lawyer Cary Sherman said anti-piracy laws don't require a separate suit, which would require more time and expense.

"One of the things we're discovering is that people are not aware that they are engaging in conduct that is clearly illegal," Sherman said. "If you got a letter from RIAA saying we know that you're doing this, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that you would stop."

At issue is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998 to protect copyright holders from piracy. It was created out of a compromise among Internet providers, technology firms and content owners. Now both Verizon and RIAA are saying the other isn't living up to the deal.

Most file-traders keep their music and movies on their own computer, only using their Internet provider as a pipeline to trade, and Verizon says RIAA only has an automatic right to know the subscriber's name if the copyrighted music sits on a Verizon-owned computer.

The music companies disagree.

"There's nothing in there that suggests that it only applies when they are carrying the material," Sherman said.

Some language in the DMCA refers to "Information Residing on Systems or Networks," rather than the alleged infringer's own computer, but the judge will have to decide if that phrase should apply to the entire request.

Some of the technology industry's fears are listed in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by an Internet provider trade group. They cite some overzealous automated programs that identify alleged pirates and shoot out an automatic letter to their Internet provider without checking the facts.

In one case, Warner Bros. demanded a particular subscriber be disconnected for illegally sharing the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." But the computer file identified by Warner Bros. in its letter indicated that it wasn't the "Harry Potter" movie but a child's written book report.

The Verizon subscriber at the center of this process was sharing thousands of songs on the Kazaa network, including some by Beck, Billy Joel and Janet Jackson. But the person may be oblivious to the fact that he or she is in the center of a controversy between the giant companies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2002 Associated Press All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[gothzane]

the problem here is that there isnt enough people file swaping...you cant sue and arrest everyone....

So cmon folks....burn all your cds into mp3s and trade away!

[phuturephunk]

. . . The music industry needs to seriously update their business model . . . I read an excellent forward one time from the Editor of the New York Times magazine that talked about how the music industry could do that . . . basic thing is, the music industry has to get away from the notion that the only way to make money is to sell massive amounts of rekkerds . . . If they LOOK for a way to do it , they will succeed in doing so . .

. . . As far as the DMCA and Various large ISP's . . . I read alot of the sections from that act, more specifically, the passages that dealt with piracy prevention (the whole controversy behind the issue) . . and its actually very VERY careful NOT to give the RIAA or any other organization the ability to actively destroy or snoop stuff on your computer . . basically what the act allows them to do is home in on your connection when they detect illegal file sharing going on and then shut the pipe down . . they ARE NOT allowed to alter ANYTHING on your computer under ANY circumstances (including the destruction of illegaly stored copyrighted works) . . if they did, they'd be just as guilty of system incursion as any private citizen . .

. . This court action is the direct result of the DMCA not giving them as much leeway as they wanted . . They're looking for any way to preserve their business model and this legal trickery, they believe, will get them one step closer to that end . . .

[somebitch]

that is cool that verizon wont give up the customers info.. i have verizon dsl at my house, it is kinda scary to know that they can tell exactly what i download (i hope im no the person with the illegal music ). god frobid they can view my posts on the sexboard or my webcam LOL.

anyway, i think just about every single customer has some copyrighted music on their drive so i dont understand how they are going to incriminate each individual. i also agree that verizon cant be held accountable for what i have on my harddrive. they give users internet access they are not the internet police. it is not their business what music i download. if they want to be serious about busting offenders they should try to get the software companies that link people to comply by their r00lz...

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by somebitch

if they want to be serious about busting offenders they should try to get the software companies that link people to comply by their r00lz...

intel and ibm are already trying to figure that out

and note to XP users...complaints are popping up of the latest microsoft XP secuirty update....apparently it hampers use of some MP3 ripping software

[darkfyre]

Originally posted by phuturephunk

[b . . As far as the DMCA and Various large ISP's . . . I read alot of the sections from that act, more specifically, the passages that dealt with piracy prevention (the whole controversy behind the issue) . . and its actually very VERY careful NOT to give the RIAA or any other organization the ability to actively destroy or snoop stuff on your computer . . basically what the act allows them to do is home in on your connection when they detect illegal file sharing going on and then shut the pipe down . . they ARE NOT allowed to alter ANYTHING on your computer under ANY circumstances (including the destruction of illegaly stored copyrighted works) . . if they did, they'd be just as guilty of system incursion as any private citizen . .

actually, although what you say is true, there is a bill chillin on the house floor right now, H.R. 5211, proposed by Rep. Howard Berman that would allow copyright holders to attack the computer of individuals found in possession of illegal files. granted, the bill stipulates that only the offending files may be targeted, and no other files or systems may be harmed in the process, but this is virtually impossible. peep that shit here - http://www.house.gov/berman/p2p.pdf

[somebitch]

Originally posted by darkfyre

actually, although what you say is true, there is a bill chillin on the house floor right now, H.R. 5211, proposed by Rep. Howard Berman that would allow copyright holders to attack the computer of individuals found in possession of illegal files. granted, the bill stipulates that only the offending files may be targeted, and no other files or systems may be harmed in the process, but this is virtually impossible. peep that shit here - http://www.house.gov/berman/p2p.pdf

how can they proove that you downloaded the file and you didnt rip it yourself from a cd you bought at a cd store???

[djmikedr]

Originally posted by phuturephunk

. . . The music industry needs to seriously update their business model . . . . . basic thing is, the music industry has to get away from the notion that the only way to make money is to sell massive amounts of rekkerds . . .

Actually it would be the notion of selling *psyical forms of music.

[djwrecknyc]

technically, in music lingo, "records" consists of all physical forms of recorded music.

[djmikedr]

Originally posted by djwrecknyc

technically, in music lingo, "records" consists of all physical forms of recorded music.

Not True. Until the digital medium act.

Many thousands of artists have not recieved royalties on contracts that were written up for "record" sales. That meant no royalties on CD's. And now there is another provision regarding mp3.

I believe now contracts state "any psyical media form" (ie: record, tape, compact disc, ect)

[djwrecknyc]

Originally posted by apotheosis

Not True. Until the digital medium act.

Many thousands of artists have not recieved royalties on contracts that were written up for "record" sales. That meant no royalties on CD's. And now there is another provision regarding mp3.

I believe now contracts state "any psyical media form" (ie: record, tape, compact disc, ect)

in more detail... in nearly every record agreement made since the 1960s, the contractual definition of "record" says a record is both an audio-only (cds, recorded cassettes, vinyl, etc) and audiovisual device (videocassettes, dvds, etc). eventhough such devices werent even invented in the 1960s, companies anticipated their development, not knowing what form they would take.

[djmikedr]

Originally posted by djwrecknyc

in more detail... in nearly every record agreement made since the 1960s, the contractual definition of "record" says a record is both an audio-only (cds, recorded cassettes, vinyl, etc) and audiovisual device (videocassettes, dvds, etc). eventhough such devices werent even invented in the 1960s, companies anticipated their development, not knowing what form they would take.

Altho Im not debating, I was taught different by my college professor (who happened to be a millionaire in the record business). But who knows maybe he had a good lawyer and was on the "other" side for all i know. lol