Verizon Ordered to Hand Over Kazaa User
According to this New York Times article, the RIAA has successfully argued their case in front a federal judge to allow them access to a subscriber of Verizon Communcations "suspected" of making available hundreds of unauthorized mp3 files. Essentially, the judge is allowing the recording industry to demand from internet service providers lists of their subscribers, subscribers they "suspect" of distributing content, without the need for a copyright holder to file a formal lawsuit. If the case fails under appeal, it will likely mean that anyone and everyone with an internet account could have their private information turned over to the entertainment industry for them to hold you - the consumer - in judgment. With power like this, would anyone be able to adequately defend themselves?
Comments
Hey, like that sticker on the iPod says, don't steal music. At the same time, the RIAA better watch its back. These people are not elected, yet they wield enormous influence over our elected representatives. This ain't right! Even here in Canada, we have a levy on blank media, the proceeds of which have yet to be distributed to the artists they claim to be protecting. It's a blatant money grab, and intended to scare the makers of P2P technology away. Nevermind the fact that the RIAA's math is wayyyy screwy as reported in the sidebar here -- its undeclared aim is total control - to wipe out indie bands and labels' methods of distribution and promotion. It's a phantom menace if ever I saw one. Solution: boycott the majors, and support your local bands!
Posted by: AJ Kandy at January 22, 2003 11:15 AM
what unauthorized mp3 files?
Posted by: robert at January 22, 2003 11:27 AM
They say sales are down but yet small labels are prospering. I download a lot of music but i still buy more than the average person. Could I have bought everything i listen to. Not without creating a incredible national debt. So am I really contributing to the 'sales slump'?
Posted by: alteeffour at January 22, 2003 11:41 AM
In my case I have about 4,000 LP's which I don't feel like digitizing myself. So I download MP3's of stuff I already own. I guess these folks (RIAA) will come after me next. They don't know I own all those records.
Ricky
Posted by: Ricardo at January 22, 2003 12:41 PM
Kudos need to go to Verizon for fighting this, though. They say they are going to appeal the decision, and are standing by their privacy policy--a good thing in this day and age of publicly traded customer information.
But the scariest thing to me is loss of due process--if the RIAA felt it had compelling evidence about a certain user pirating large amounts of protected material, why did they not just go to law enforcement and have a judge seek a search warrant?
If companies have the right to demand that other companies hand over customer information on the suspicion of wrongdoing, what's to stop companies from using this as a tool for corporate espionage or intimidation?
"We suspect you of sharing protected files. Of course, we've never told you what your rights and licenses are as a consumer of our copyrighted information, but nevertheless you have broken those rights."
I think we need to call an all out ban on CD buying until the industry starts offering us compelling packaging and reasons to buy CD's instead of draconian threats and ludicrously complicated (and possibly dangerous, to Mac users) encryption schemes.
Posted by: Martin at January 22, 2003 12:46 PM
"If companies have the right to demand that other companies hand over customer information on the suspicion of wrongdoing, what?s to stop companies from using this as a tool for corporate espionage or intimidation?"
That was exactly the point I meant to highlight but didn't get far enough along in the thought process to scribble down. Forget about mp3s for a second and take a look at the bigger picture - this is one, private, for profit organization suing another for their customer list and all their vital information. If a judge allows this to happen, drug companies could theoretically attempt to acquire lists of patients at a Doctor's office that may fit a profile for one of their prescription products.
Posted by: Todd Dominey at January 22, 2003 2:22 PM
"If a judge allows this to happen, drug companies could theoretically attempt to acquire lists of patients at a Doctor's office that may fit a profile for one of their prescription products."
That implication is truly frightening--a customer list aquired through coercion. It brings to mind complaints from Librarians that the Federal Government is demanding access to user information based on the Patriot act--if information is accessible through courts, imagine a corporation accessing library records and charging you for their content you used without paying for.
Seems a little far fetched, but to my mind a logical conclusion of the argument employed by the RIAA.
Posted by: Martin at January 22, 2003 3:25 PM
Nice "free" country you've got over there..
Posted by: tomas at January 22, 2003 4:37 PM
Total Information Awareness?
Posted by: michael at January 22, 2003 4:50 PM
I can hardly believe judges are so technologically out-of-touch. They continue to rule cases that set precedents for ISPs to be responsible for information tansmitted by their users. As one guy said, it's "akin to blaming the highway department for creating roads that are used by dope smugglers."
Posted by: Boz at January 22, 2003 10:44 PM
