|
Verizon To Appeal Immediately
Verizon Vows to Continue to Protect Subscriber Privacy
Company Will Immediately Ask U.S. Appeals Court for Stay Of Controversial Ruling
April 24, 2003
Media contact: Maureen Flanagan, 202-515-2514
WASHINGTON - Verizon today said it would immediately ask a U.S. Appeals Court for a stay of a lower court ruling forcing the company to reveal the identity of an Internet subscriber accused of music piracy. Verizon is seeking to protect a subscriber's privacy following a decision today by U.S. District Court Judge John Bates to deny the company's original request for a stay. The case stems from a subpoena filed last summer by the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) demanding that Verizon Online turn over the name of a customer whom the RIAA alleges possesses illegal copies of copyrighted music files on the customer's personal computer. Verizon refused to comply, noting that the subpoena did not comply with the requirements of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which applies only to files hosted on an Internet company's network and not on the computer in a subscriber's home or office. The RIAA sued Verizon to enforce the subpoena. On Jan. 21, Judge Bates ruled in favor of the RIAA. The following week, Verizon filed for a stay of the judge's decision pending an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. In his ruling today, Judge Bates upheld the constitutionality of the subpoena requirement even though the subpoena was issued outside any "case or controversy." Judge Bates today also issued a temporary stay to allow the Court of Appeals time to consider the issue of a stay. The following response should be attributed to John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for Verizon.
"Today's ruling goes far beyond the interests of large copyright monopolists -- such as RIAA -- in enforcing its copyrights. This decision exposes anyone who uses the Internet to potential predators, scam artists and crooks, including identity thieves and stalkers. We will continue to use every legal means available to protect our subscribers' privacy and will immediately seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has already agreed to hear this important Internet privacy case on an expedited schedule.
"Verizon sought the stay in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to preserve the privacy of its subscriber and to allow the U.S. Court of Appeals the opportunity to review the important statutory and constitutional issues raised in this case.
"Verizon feels very strongly that the privacy, safety and due process rights of hundreds of thousands -- or perhaps millions -- of Internet subscribers hang in the balance of the court's decision. We look to the Court of Appeals to decide this case in a narrow manner that avoids a chilling effect on Internet users' private communications, such as e-mail, instant messages or surfing the Internet."
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
directive
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 5:06 PM
THANK YOU VERIZON! Looks like its on its way to the supreme court someday. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 5:13 PM
Did I hear Verizon accuse the RIAA of monopolistic activity?
Why, yes I did. That's one of those things that makes you go, "Hmmm..." |
|
Jefrystube
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 5:19 PM
I think the term "moronistic" also applies. Yeah, go after deep pockets like Verizon who just may whup-yer-ass in court. If they'd been smart (an accusation I've never thrown at the RIAA), they'd have gone after a small, defenseless ISP and won. Good thing the RIAA is stupid. |
|
kneo24
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 5:37 PM
Go Verizon! |
|
directive
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 5:38 PM
Here is what Cary is saying about the whole thing:
"If users of pirate peer-to-peer sites don't want to be identified, they should
not break the law by illegally distributing music," Sherman said. "Today's
decision makes clear that these individuals cannot rely on their ISPs
(Internet service providers) to shield them from accountability." |
|
directive
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 5:41 PM
I have many issues with this, i encourage other to respond.
They use the words "users of pirate peer-to-peer" to make it sound like even people who share legit files are bad people.
Its not about this, "Today's
decision makes clear that these individuals cannot rely on their ISPs
(Internet service providers) to shield them from accountability." Though Cary wants us to think that. Its about privacy and getting a court order, that is some of what verizon is arguing.
The RIAA is going about this wrong way.
|
|
RaidHHI
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 5:52 PM
I realize some of you might disagree with me on this post. Many of you suggest boycotting the RIAA and those companies they represent. The RIAA is screaming bloody murder about downloading copyrighted songs. Well.. Since they are obviously going to use the law in any way they can to fuck you the consumer over; Why do you want to stop trading the very things which makes them so angry? Continue to trade; Support your local ripping groups (if you know any). Keep the material coming. If a band has a new cd out; ensure a copy is available thru the regular channels. The only way to fight something evil like the RIAA which has essentially bought off most of the legal system, is to distribute the music to anyone who wants it. The hell with them.
Hail MP3!
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 6:55 PM
Or ignore their music completely. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 6:56 PM
Major label music is illegal. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 6:59 PM
A good law-abiding citizen would not listen to major label music. It is illegal. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 7:02 PM
You see, I cannot advocate RaidHHI's stance. Make no mistake, he is absolutely right. The RIAA is really powerless to stop it.
I just can't advocate it. Even if I agree with it. |
|
NiceGuy2003
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 8:33 PM
The RIAA has never scared me. I'll continue exercising my right to hear recorded material until the day they tear my eardrums out.
Fortunately this isn't Iran where they can do such utter crap. |
|
TuxLiker
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 10:58 PM
I have been watching this site for some time now. I did not feel like registering. I would like to express my dislike for the riaa too. I think Riaa is like Hitler. I was not alive during his era. But I think the riaa is just like him in a unique way. They would do anything to exterminate "music" those hungry pigs.
Comment:
> Fortunately this isn't Iran where they can do such utter crap.
>
If we do not let them do this crap.
I fully support Verizon against RIAA. This year will be my first time that I will get my voting rights. When elections do come up. I will vote a bit differently. RIAA has completed proved that they have backing. Riaa is unconstitutional. Rights? what rights do I have they are taking away my privacy one by one. Not to mention they will work hard to take away freedom too. Whether they succeed or not. It will be up to me and millions of other people just like me. Our freedom and rights are in our hands. If we do not fight for it we will eventually loose it. I also think that the RIAA is spitting at our own constitution in a way. The richer a company is the more cases it wins. It is not about being right. It is about having more money to pay. You can buyout the lawyers, judges politicians and get away with it all. While some innocent person will face jail time. Because they were not able to defend themselves well enough. The RIAA continued tyranny, fascism is up to how informed our people are. Now they are going beyond US. I had a dream of shooting a commercial in regard to riaa. We need to see the riaa go under. Because they will never change business practices. Something better should come along. I also fully support this webpage. I would love to send donation. Probably I will when I will be able too. Just one more thing this site needs to be more accessible on the search engines. Like more keywords so people looking for "riaa" could find this page faster. |
|
FadedInTheLight
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 11:33 PM
Lets say im a psycho stalker. With this process, if i get my victom's IP address, i can file a subpena saying that there violating a copywrite i hold, and with that i can get access to there personal information, and even access to the person themself. And all i needed was there IP? |
|
FadedInTheLight
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 11:39 PM
QUICKLY!!! RAID THE LOCAL LIBRARY RECORDS!! Second to the evil pirate peer-to-peer file sharing networks, public librarys, which offer FREE, and unauthorized access to MILLIONS of COPYWRITED material! Anyone who wants to can walk down to there public library, and access books that cost hundreds of dollers, CDs, that cost $20 EACH, and even VIDEOS. Every time somone goes to the library and takes out one of these items, its taking food out of the mouth of the artest! Information cost money to produce! To paraphraze hillery rosen, if we dont stop this now, we will have a generation of people who think that art, and infromation should be free! |
|
RythmMethod
|
Date: April 24, 2003 @ 11:51 PM
Where can we get hold of a list of all the politicians bought or otherwise owned by the RIAA? The scariest thing to a cheap whore of a politician, is the fear of not being re-elected.We need to post all their names and email addresses and let them know they are targets for defeat in any upcoming and future elections, A: Because they do not support the constitution as written,and B:Just because we believe they are unpleasant little piglets who are squealing and squirming to get to the most grotesquely swollen tit. |
|
chrisbacke
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 12:00 AM
rythm, good question... isn't there supposed to be a congressional something-or-other where how people vote is listed? |
|
RythmMethod
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 12:08 AM
Yes but I believe you have to do that district by district. We need people from each state in the union, and even more from the states where the most offensive politburo resides. Actually, e-mail is largely ignored in most state offices, may be toss up whether to write or e-mail.Any clue that some slug holding office may be a popular target for defeat will get some attention, even if it's just to toss your letter and grumble about how omnipotent he/she may be, all the while picturing themselves in the soup line. I find that any letter concerning a polits percievedly poor performance, generally gets a reply. |
|
PhantomGhost
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 12:50 AM
Verizon has a chance at getting this case. They just need to patient and persistent. Eventually, I think they will get to some judge or judges who aren't persuaded by the power of money or the RIAA. In the political world, there aren't very many of these people, but they do exist. The RIAA is trying to scare consumers, but Verizon's heroic effort may pave the way for other companies to follow suit. Who made the RIAA supreme in this country? Nobody. If consumers work together, we can outwit the RIAA. We're doing it right now. Remember, the real power in this country in terms of laws is Congress. The antiwar coalition? Never got support from Congress. Didn't try nearly hard enough. They flopped. We have to beat the RIAA at their own game and convince lawmakers that our votes are worth more than RIAA money. We also need to work together to ensure liberties and conumser rights in this country. |
|
chance11
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 1:04 AM
RythmMethod makes a good point. Bill, can we compile a list or possibly a thread in the forum or something? Then post it as part of the main site once it's complete?
I'm glad to see Verizon is going about this the right way. They are absolutely right on the privacy aspects. All you would have to do is copywright just 1 thing, then claim infringement. Go down to the clerks office, hand them a list of say 5,000 IP addresses beloning to a specific service provider, and you get a form that requires the ISP to lookup the 5,000 IP's and provide you with contact information. Oh yea, you do have to pay the clerk 5 bucks to stamp the form.
What crooks can do from there? who knows. Our privacy rights are getting trampled people. Security experts are scared to speak out about flaws because of leagl action threatened by the product owner. All this is brought to you curteousy of the DMCA. The MPAA is currently sneaking in Super DMCA bills in to various state legislatures. Help stop this BS! www.eff.org |
|
justed
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 4:22 AM
Regarding: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-ms-0040.pdf
Civil Action No. 03-MS-0040 (JDB)
(QUOTE)
Before the Court is the motion of Verizon Internet Services (“Verizon”) to quash the February 4, 2003 subpoena served on it by the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.S. ss 512.
On behalf of copyright owners, RIAA seeks the identity of an anonymous user of the conduit functions of Verizon’s Internet service who is alleged to have infringed copyrights by offering hundreds of songs for downloading over the Internet. 1
(UNQUOTE)
Which is further clarified:
(QUOTE)
1 RIAA is the industry trade association for sound and music recordings, and is authorized to enforce the copyrights of its members, who create and distribute most of the music sold in the United States.
(UNQUOTE)
It seems to me: RIAA can’t prove specific copyright files exist within any specific computer without receiving specific permission to do so or, illegally accessing the specific computer.
Since: RIAA only has authorization to enforce the copyrights of “most” NOT all music in the United States.
Obviously this is an UNWARRANTED (pun unavoidable) intrusion.
|
|
W-B
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 4:30 AM
To 'PhantomGhost' as to the question "Who made the RIAA supreme in this country?" In part, it was because some three years ago, as the witch-hunt against Napster and any and all those associated therewith began, there wasn't really anybody who had the 'quijones' to truly stand up to them in such a matter that would've made the RIAA Goliaths "think twice" or "deter" them in any meaningful way, and so on. And so because hardly anybody of true consequence didn't go on the offensive (or counter-offensive, or whatever), almost always on the apologistic defensive, we now have this multi-headed, way-out-of-control, probably unstoppable monster in our midst.
But the timing of this, coming as it is at the same time that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro imposed long prison sentences (up to 30 years) upon some 80 political dissidents on trumped-up charges of "collaborating with U.S. diplomats to subvert the Castro regime" after a brief "show trial" in one of his kangaroo courts (and had three other dissidents executed before a firing squad only ONE DAY after they were caught hijacking a boat to Florida), is very interesting. A coincidence, maybe, but very interesting nonetheless.
I could easily imagine those "judges" who've continually and constantly sided with Goliath vs. David in the RIAA-Verizon death match sitting in judgment of those dissidents in Cuba. Very easily. The aims of the RIAA vs. Cuba may be different, but the behavior (encouragement of ratting, constant monitoring of computer activities, decisions and strategy based partly on irrational paranoia and massive distrust of the public) is VERY similar.
As for the DMCA . . . It is quite clear what the aim of THAT is: to condemn this country towards the status of a primitive Third World banana republic where there is NO innovation or history of enterpreneurialism, and where everything (laws, business licensure etc.) is skewed and slanted towards the privileged few, and where those in "the bottom" who try to rise up have their heads chopped off. Not to mention part and parcel of an overall conspiracy to subvert and sabotage the Internet and the structure thereof, and to destroy the tech industry in this country and place it under socialist-style Big Government control. And of course, to engineer this country towards a "closed" society. |
|
tylerfd
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 10:52 AM
I always wonder how they pick which people to pick on. There are countless people who have hundreds, and sometimes even thousands of mp3's (probably "illegal") on their computers. Do you think the RIAA just picks names out of hat, or what? |
|
FadedInTheLight
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 11:22 AM
If i understand what one of my lawyer friends told me... Its not illegal to have "illegal" MP3s, or copys of files on your computer. The problem is in distribution of said files.
This site should develop its resources more, rather then just being a news site. If there could be links to articals, and refrences. Most of the stuff on here seems to be from a while ago. |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 11:54 AM
Have your lawyer friend take a look at the No Electronic Theft Act. NET act. This was passed in in 1996 I believe. Basically downloading illegally distributed files is illegal under that. |
|
dogpile
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 12:59 PM
Just as large U.S. companies have opened offices offshore to avoid paying huge taxes in the U.S., I'm sure ISPs or someone will find ways to provide services outside the U.S. that will not be under U.S laws and the dumb RIAA. |
|
FadedInTheLight
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 5:56 PM
Well what he actualy told me, back during the napster days, was that even if napster was deamed illegal, that the MP3s that i had downloaded were legal, and they couldn't do anything for me meerly having them. |
|
M1
|
Date: April 25, 2003 @ 8:56 PM
It won't be easy for them to just bust downloaders.
A person sharing 0 files is pretty much 100% safe. I'm sure there would be problems with entrapment if the RIAA offered up their copyrighted files to be downloaded by people..then sued them for infringement.
Also...just HAVING mp3s on your hard drive is safe too. They have no idea if you own the CDs - you could have those files as your right of fair use. Once you share them though...you're fair game. |
|
justed
|
Date: April 26, 2003 @ 1:05 AM
This attempted “Internet Chill” would have MAJOR implications to Verizon’s business model – to say the least.
They have to fight it ALL the way.
Or scrap their broadband infrastructure investment.
After all: What good is a broadband / high-speed connection if, as a customer, you don’t have some use for it?
|
|
theerm
|
Date: April 26, 2003 @ 5:34 AM
I think I'll switch to verison.
noriaa.the-erm.com
Erm |
|
theerm
|
Date: April 26, 2003 @ 5:42 AM
Looks like the RIAA got hacked again ... funny. |
|
SinisterX
|
Date: April 26, 2003 @ 12:07 PM
When Have they not been hacked? Seems they get hacked more than any other website on the net. lol. |
|
ctenet
|
Date: April 27, 2003 @ 3:38 AM
GO VERIZON!
The importance of this case is way beyond just this issue. It will affect privacy. I had Verizon dial-up, but then Optimum Online (Cablevision) came to my area first. My dad, who works for Verizon, says DSL will be around me soon, so I'll get that. |
|
goldenpi
|
Date: April 27, 2003 @ 1:58 PM
I agree about the precident problem. If verizon loses, which is looking increaseingly likely, anyone could identify anyone using a US-based ISP. The copyright holders would love that because they could start on some serious scareing. There would be inevitable abuses by everyone from overenthusiastic anti-spammer groups to the superstrict anti-porno campaigners and every protest group in the country. Goodbye freedom of speech, the second you publish a contriversal site you would run the risk of someone getting your identidy and in a week a group of protestors could be camping outside your house.
The RIAA website is down, but it looks like a database problem. It may be a hack gone wrong, or it may be a real technical problem. The RIAA website has a poor record for both. Thats what they get for using IIS.
The RIAA and the similar groups wont bother going after the people with a few files. Its just not worth it. Since the majority of uploads on a network are from only a few users targeting those would be far more effective.
Heres an intresting problem. Partial uploads. If I upload one part of a 20-part 700M movie file, am I in as much potential trouble as if I had uploaded the entire movie? |
|
|
Navigation
