Judge orders ISPs to give into Music Industry bullying

DRoseDARs · January 21, 2003, 23:18

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...oading_music_4

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 (news - web sites), 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 (news - web sites).

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.

Nothing like vigilantee justice to stir compassion and admiration for the underdog victim RIAA.

So much for due process...

notyoueither · January 22, 2003, 00:45

Well no sh*t, Sherlock!

People who enable felonies may not hide the identity of felons whom they aid.

Now, if all you folks with shorts in knots over copy rights could get your act together, you might convince law makers to change laws, but... oh yeah, you're goning to have a hard time convincing law makers that theft is OK, if you are only stealing certain things...

Dis · January 22, 2003, 04:04

stealing music is bad.

why it is bad, I don't know. It just is.

BustaMike · January 22, 2003, 05:12

Quote:

stealing music is bad

...says the starter of how many "recommend me some whatever music" threads.

Quote:

People who enable felonies may not hide the identity of felons whom they aid.

I guess that cars ought to have stuff on them that automatically reports if someone is speeding (30 over the limit is a felony). The car is enabling the person's felony so the car company ought to report it right? What a ridiculous statement. The ISP should not be made to do anything.

Dis · January 22, 2003, 05:17

actually moves are being made to equip cars with "black boxes". So when you get in an accident the insurance company can figure out the speed you were driving etc.

And yes stealing music is wrong. That doesn't mean I haven't done plenty of it

. I have stole plenty of music from the internet.

BustaMike · January 22, 2003, 05:21

eh... ok, I guess I'm just a really bad person then.

Urban Ranger · January 22, 2003, 08:00

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now, if all you folks with shorts in knots over copy rights could get your act together, you might convince law makers to change laws, but... oh yeah, you're goning to have a hard time convincing law makers that theft is OK, if you are only stealing certain things...

Nothing is lost. What has been stolen?

Goingonit · January 22, 2003, 08:01

Yeah, I guess it's wrong. But it's just so damn easy. And I'd like to say that if there were a subscription music service with a selection large enough that I could find what I want almost all of the time, with REASONABLE costs, I would use it.

Urban Ranger · January 22, 2003, 08:04

It's just a large blur of grey now. Fair use is already out of the window (DMCA), but large corporations can hold copyrights for aeons - you bet Disney will sponsor another extension when Mickey Mouse is about to fall into public domain.

MoonWolf · January 22, 2003, 08:24

The music industry is only making it worse for themselves. First; when you download an MP3, you don't steal anything, you copy it. They cry about how much they loose; in fact it's how much they would have earned if all that music was bought instead. Would a student ever have bought all the 3000 songs he has as MP3s? No way! I download some music but it's to listen to it before I potenially buy it. Ok, I might keep it if I don't find it good enough to buy, but what's the big deal? I wouldn't have bought it anyway! Some music I don't even find in the CD-shops.

A funny story:
I bought a CD in my favourite shop (alternative music, one of those that one person owns and runs. Love the atmosphere). During the trade, I disvovered one of the CD's had the ugly "Copy Protection" mark. I told him I prefer to have my favourite CD's on my PC as MP3s (not for sharing, more easy to listen to). "Yes, it sometimes won't play on my CD-player (normal, not CD-ROM)" he said and showed me how to bypass the copy protection.

This Copy Production, Cactus Shield I think, includes a data track and a CD-player for computers. This CD-players works only on Windows-computer I think and cosumes quite a lot of CPU-power... Good choices, music industry!

Pekka · January 22, 2003, 08:26

Yeah. RIAA is getting greedy. We should put up a 'punch project', where ever we are, when ever we see RIAA worker or who supports it, we puch him/her. Who's with me?!

SpencerH · January 22, 2003, 10:07

DP

SpencerH · January 22, 2003, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well no sh*t, Sherlock!

People who enable felonies may not hide the identity of felons whom they aid.

Now, if all you folks with shorts in knots over copy rights could get your act together, you might convince law makers to change laws, but... oh yeah, you're goning to have a hard time convincing law makers that theft is OK, if you are only stealing certain things...

There are other reasons for downloading MP3's than stealing music. For example, it can save you the trouble of digitizing old LP's or converting CD's into more versatile compact formats. Of course the record industry doesnt think that's 'fair use' either. I'm against stealing music, but the RIAA think we live in Nazi Germany. The measures they want enforced are draconian. Fortunately, their chances of success in the long term are slim. They'd be better advised to join the internet revolution than to continue to stick their heads up their asses.

Oerdin · January 22, 2003, 10:51

As long as the RIAA keeps spreading this kind of pointless litigation then I'm not going to shade a tear over file sharing. What ever happened to the old common carrier exemption? So the phone company is exempt but an ISP isn't? Rubbish.

Inverse Icarus · January 22, 2003, 11:27

curious question: what if you download live concert mp3's from a concert which you went to (and paid for)?

what if i went to one concert on metallica's tour, but i couldn't find any of my concert but i saw the mp3s for the same concert in Cali or something?

Oerdin · January 22, 2003, 11:32

The RIAA still wants you to pay again. Last week I burned a few of the CDs I own into MP3s so I could create costum mix CDs and guess what happened when I tried to play them using Window's Media player?

Media player said I didn't have a licience to play the music and I'd have to pay $3.99 in order to play music from a CD I already own.

Oerdin · January 22, 2003, 11:36

Of course the holy grail as far as the RIAA is concerned is they want to see an end state where people have to pay each and every time they listen to a song. They've been trying to introduce technologies like DIVX to achieve that end but so far consumers have been smart enough to stay out of that bear trap.

Urban Ranger · January 22, 2003, 11:40

The left and the right unite against the RIAA. Are they dead or what?

Boris Godunov · January 22, 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well no sh*t, Sherlock!

People who enable felonies may not hide the identity of felons whom they aid.

Now, if all you folks with shorts in knots over copy rights could get your act together, you might convince law makers to change laws, but... oh yeah, you're goning to have a hard time convincing law makers that theft is OK, if you are only stealing certain things...

First you have to explain why downloading a song from the internet is stealing anything. "Stealing" music would entail taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own, or trying to make money off of someone else's recording (what Albert Speer does).

Downloading a song for your own listening pleasure isn't stealing anything. It is no different than taping a song off the radio.

Oerdin · January 22, 2003, 12:33

I'd have to agree with Boris on this one. If it's legal to tape a tv or radio broadcast why is it illegal to digitally record a webcast? Also the RIAA is looking like a fool when they try to blame napster and kazaa for falling record sales.

When there is good music to buy people buy records, but, since there are now fewer labels putting out few records (abet at higher prices and at higher volumes then ever before) there are now fewer choices and fewer opportunities for a blockbuster hit. If the RIAA wants to see its sales go up again they have to start trying harder to please costumers and stop trying to litigate themselves to riches.

SpencerH · January 22, 2003, 12:37

I think there is a difference Boris. If you tape music thats coming over the radio it's analogous to taping a broadcasted TV show. AFAIK that battle has been fought in the courts in the 80's and despite the protests of the TV industy it was deemed 'fair use'. I'm not sure the same battle has been fought over taping music from the radio but its seems to me that it's a similar situation. Copying music that has not been legally broadcast could be deemed as theft if one did not already own the rights to it already. That being said, its hard to understand how SONY (for example) can complain that people are copying their material while they sell the devices that allow such copying. What are they gonna do sue themselves?

I think that the recording industry has the right to try to protect their product but that they dont know how to do that. Rather than integrate with the changing technology they're just flailing away with rediculous legal challenges that perpetuate our opinion of them as greedy morons.

January 22, 2003, 12:44

The RIAA is just delaying the inevitable: Their obsolescense as greedy middlemen due to new technology is drawing closer and closer. Just a matter of time.

Boris Godunov · January 22, 2003, 12:49

Spencer, but that leaves two big questions: 1) Once again, what exactly is being "stolen," and 2) How can you prosecute someone for downloading something they didn't even copy in the first place? If there is a perpetrator of any crime, it seems to me it would be the person who actually ripped the CD and put up a downloadable version on the web. It doesn't make sense, IMO, to go after people who download something that has been posted. After all, for all they know, it could be up there with permission.

SpencerH · January 22, 2003, 13:04

OK, perhaps theft is the wrong term. But it is receiving stolen goods though. AFAIK intent is a big component in these issues so if you were prosecuted you might claim that you didnt know it wasnt stolen, but I think that a court would say that it was a reasonable assumption for you to make and find you guilty. Since many stores allow you to listen before purchase, a better defense would be that you downloaded the music in order to judge whether or not you would buy it.

Oerdin · January 22, 2003, 13:12

The really big stupid thing the RIAA is doing which I can't help but laugh at is they are claiming ISPs are resposible for anything people do on the internet. That's like claiming the phone company is responsible when an individual commits telemarketing fraud.

The ISP is just a common carrier and the RIAA is using legal scare tactics to try and bully them into doing something it knows it will lose in court. The RIAA is just hoping the ISPs think it will be to costly and time consuming to hire the lawyers to fight them.

Boris Godunov · January 22, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
OK, perhaps theft is the wrong term. But it is receiving stolen goods though.

How is it a "stolen" good? If you stole a CD from a store and sold or gave it to me, then yes, that would be receiving a stolen good. But if you buy a CD, post it on the web for all to see, and I come across and download it, what "good" has been stolen? The CD was paid for, after all.

So is anyone who has made a mix tape from their store-bought cassette tapes guilty of a felony?

Quote:

AFAIK intent is a big component in these issues so if you were prosecuted you might claim that you didnt know it wasnt stolen, but I think that a court would say that it was a reasonable assumption for you to make and find you guilty.

But first we'd have to get to the point of who is responsible for what crime. If I download a piece of music to listen to, what has been stolen? Unless a court could prove I profited from it by perhaps slapping it on a CD and selling it, I don't think they can reasonably assume anything. Courts aren't supposed to assume anything, anyway!

monkspider · January 22, 2003, 13:53

Good news! It ain't over yet folks, Verizon is going to appeal
http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/...zon/index.html
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/5990

Urban Ranger · January 22, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
The ISP is just a common carrier and the RIAA is using legal scare tactics to try and bully them into doing something it knows it will lose in court. The RIAA is just hoping the ISPs think it will be to costly and time consuming to hire the lawyers to fight them.

Because the RIAA is scared. They can sense their own doom and is desperately trying to fight it off. They can't attack the user base, because it is too big and diffused.

Urban Ranger · January 22, 2003, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Good news! It ain't over yet folks, Verizon is going to appeal

Woot, you should read the OP more carefully, comrade.

SpencerH · January 22, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

How is it a "stolen" good? If you stole a CD from a store and sold or gave it to me, then yes, that would be receiving a stolen good. But if you buy a CD, post it on the web for all to see, and I come across and download it, what "good" has been stolen? The CD was paid for, after all.

By keeping the MP3's you're stealing or abetting in the theft of intellectual property.

Quote:

So is anyone who has made a mix tape from their store-bought cassette tapes guilty of a felony?

According to what the RIAA want yes. Thats why they're *******s, doomed to lose.

Quote:

But first we'd have to get to the point of who is responsible for what crime. If I download a piece of music to listen to, what has been stolen? Unless a court could prove I profited from it by perhaps slapping it on a CD and selling it, I don't think they can reasonably assume anything. Courts aren't supposed to assume anything, anyway!

Courts assume lots of things are reasonable behaviour (or not) in order to set precedents. If you download a CD and listen to it once then toss it, it could be argued that there's no abuse of intellectual property laws. If you keep it for a year and listen to it every day then you should have bought it.