Pacific Bell suing RIAA, others for breach of privacy

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 8:09 am

Straight from the EFF newsletter...

* Pacific Bell Sues Recording Industry for Customer Privacy

Electronic Frontier Foundation Supports ISP Resistance

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation applauds a lawsuit brought by Pacific Bell Internet Services on July 31 against three organizations that are manipulating copyright laws to violate the privacy of ISP customers.

The case concerns 97 subpoenas directed to Pacific Bell over the past two weeks. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has issued thousands of subpoenas to various ISPs, seeking the identity of music fans who use peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks.

The lawsuit alleges that the RIAA, along with MediaForce, a company that issues millions of "cease-and-desist" letters to ISPs, and Titan Media, a gay-themed adult entertainment company, have distorted certain provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) in an attempt to force Pacific Bell to breach its customers' privacy.

Pacific Bell seeks a declaration from the court that any further subpoenas and cease-and-desist letters for peer-to-peer file sharing activity must follow some court-established safeguards ensuring that there is some evidence of illegal activity before divulging personal information about ISP customers.

"The misuse of the subpoena process by an adult entertainment company emphasizes the potential for abuse with insufficient privacy protections in the law," explained EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Without vetting by any court, companies can issue subpoenas that disclose the identities of targeted individuals and link their names to gay-themed adult porn, making it impossible for them to regain their privacy later even if the allegations are patently false."

This case highlights the privacy problems that led over 44 organizations to join with EFF in opposing the subpoena process in a similar case involving Verizon in Washington, DC, currently pending before a federal appeals court.

"The DC Court dismissed our concerns about subpoena process abuse as premature," added EFF Staff Attorney Gwen Hinze. "The California Court will have an opportunity to consider critical privacy concerns in light of the thousands of subpoenas the RIAA has issued as a clear abuse of the subpoena process."

The RIAA's crusade has already drawn the concerned attention of Congress.

Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) recently announced an investigation into the issuance of the subpoenas and the threatened lawsuits.

EFF applauds both Pacific Bell and Senator Coleman and urges concerned citizens to learn more about ways to make filesharing legal while getting artists paid at our Let the Music Play Campaign.

briarus · Post by **briarus** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:10 am

*clap clap clap gives finger to riaa*

sweet, now if all the execs at riaa just drop dead

div · Post by **div** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:45 am

if you read through the actual complaint and demand for jury trial... they're trying to get the DMCA declared unconstitutional, as well as declaring it unconstitutional for an ISP to be subpoena'd for a subscribers personal information without a lawsuit against the subscriber already being in progress. (which would put RIAA in a tough spot. you can't file a lawsuit against someone you don't know who is, and you can't find out who a user is unless you have a lawsuit in progress against them already)

MahoganyDawn · Post by **MahoganyDawn** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:51 pm

Thank goodness there are more people standung up to those assholes.

white_darkness · Post by **white_darkness** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:20 pm

I found this a very comforting sign that there's still some hope for people vs. big business out there.

vertigo25 · Post by **vertigo25** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 1:49 pm

white_darkness wrote:I found this a very comforting sign that there's still some hope for people vs. big business out there.

Strictly speaking.. this is big business vs. big business, but I'm still glad it's happening.

junkie christ · Post by **junkie christ** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:44 pm

this is the rock
that slid down the mountain
And caused a landslide.
get off your ass and clap
FUCK THE RIAA.

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 3:04 pm

div wrote:if you read through the actual complaint and demand for jury trial... they're trying to get the DMCA declared unconstitutional, as well as declaring it unconstitutional for an ISP to be subpoena'd for a subscribers personal information without a lawsuit against the subscriber already being in progress. (which would put RIAA in a tough spot. you can't file a lawsuit against someone you don't know who is, and you can't find out who a user is unless you have a lawsuit in progress against them already)

Yeah. People have been trying get the DMCA nixed for quite some time. I'm glad to see that there's still some ground to be won on it.

If anybody is already feeling like donating to a charitable organization, you should keep the EFF in mind. They're fighting for your own rights, after all.

white_darkness · Post by **white_darkness** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:23 pm

vertigo25 wrote:
white_darkness wrote:I found this a very comforting sign that there's still some hope for people vs. big business out there.

Strictly speaking.. this is big business vs. big business, but I'm still glad it's happening.

True, but the law in question attacks the privacy rights of the individual consumer.

Admittedly, it's a good thing having one money hungry jugernaut squaring off against another money hungry jugernaut.

junkie christ · Post by **junkie christ** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 5:05 pm

iblis wrote:If anybody is already feeling like donating to a charitable organization, you should keep the EFF in mind. They're fighting for your own rights, after all.

do they still have the donate info on the site?

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:30 pm

junkie christ wrote:
iblis wrote:If anybody is already feeling like donating to a charitable organization, you should keep the EFF in mind. They're fighting for your own rights, after all.

do they still have the donate info on the site?

Yeah, there's a bunch of info on that here.

The Prophet Mani · Post by **The Prophet Mani** » Tue Aug 05, 2003 8:16 pm

Although I think the RIAA is barking up the wrong tree with their warrants, truth is, folks downloading MP3's without the copyright holder's permission are stealing.

I support the use of Napster, Kazaa, and the like as a great promotional tool for bands... lord knows I've downloaded enough music in my time... but it still doesn't make it legal... or "right". (I've also done many... many drugs... that still doesn't make them legal and when I did them I wasn't stealing someone's "intellectual property")

If an artist decides to allow the RIAA into their contractual deal, face it... you don't have to sign with Columbia or Sony, then the artist is saying you've no right to their music without paying for it. If you take it, it's theft.

It matters not whether the artist is "huge" and can afford it or not... it's still not up for the downloader to decide.

This, however, does not mean that I support blanket warrants for people's information either, but blanket "RIAA = Evil" talk is nonsense. They exist for a very real reason.

div · Post by **div** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 8:51 am

no one is stealing anything. this is something i've never understood about this whole issue. Artists and musicians record music so that it can be spread and their work be heard. Does it matter if your copy of the song was obtained by downloading it? Is this any different from recording it off of a radio station? Or borrowing the cd from a friend and copying it? No. Are people getting sued for doing those things? No. So why is it different if you download it? I could see the problem if you were downloading the songs, burning them off onto cd, printing off an exact copy of the liner notes, and then trying to sell the result. And yes, there are people doing just that, but the funny thing is - they aren't the ones being targeted.
Then there's the cry of, "you're taking money out of the artists pocket!"... And this is true, after a fashion. The artist is getting paid whether or not a single copy of their record sells. But, they do get more money based on how many get sold. The more popular an artist, the more they make. Sounds like a great deal, especially if you become popular. And this is the crux of the problem. If songs get shared for free, less records get sold.

So what's the solution? Stricter enforcement of the copyright laws? Invading someone's privacy on the off chance that they recorded a copy of a song they heard on the radio and liked? Making it to where, even if you bought and paid for a legitimate copy of the record, you can't copy it and keep the original in pristine shape while the copy gets tossed around your car? Do away with the copyright laws altogether?

None of those make sense. You want my idea? Do away with the concept of royalties. The artist gets paid a flat rate for each album recorded. If you last album did well, you have more bargining power to get more money out of your next one. You only had enough creative inspiration for one album and it sold incredibly well and you want more money than what you initially got? Merchandising.

Oh, and you want an interesting statistic? 80% of all the albums ever sold did not sell enough copies for the artist to ever even receive royalties. Take a look: http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html

</rant off>

this has been brought to you by a decided lack of sleep...

Synthpopalooza · Post by **Synthpopalooza** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:31 am

I have never been a fan of the RIAA, but not over the downloading issue.

I run an online radio station, and now thanks to the RIAA, I am now having to pay a monthly feel to maintain my webcast. All along they have used tactics to try to stifle independent music and free expression on the internet, and clear the playing field so that the only music you get to hear is THEIR music. They have already succeeded with commercial radio (most radio stations these days are owned by a select few corporations) and now they are trying to turn the internet into a top 40 wasteland.

No, I do not support the downloading of music as a substitute for buying the album (you must support the artist) ... but I am under no illusion that the RIAA is doing this solely out of concern for musicians. They're just scared that people are going to find out that the latest Britney album consists of nothing but filler, and not buy it.

This latest attempt to run our constitution through the paper shredder only serves to prove the point that the RIAA is power-hungry.

The Prophet Mani · Post by **The Prophet Mani** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:32 am

recording off the radio is actually illegal, but the record companies have never done anything about it because the quality of the signal has not come even remotely close to the source material.... and also because radio also tends to play "singles" and people tend to download entire albums.

Also, it is quite illegal for someone to copy a purchased cd to give to a friend. It is, however, legal for you to make copies of albums that you've purchased if you plan to only use it yourself.

Neither of these are possible to track

Downloading from the internet is easy to keep tabs on.

Artists and musicians record music so that it can be spread and their work be heard.

For the artists who record solely for this purpose, you will find little bitterness to-wards the downloading mp3 issue. But, most artists who record, and ALL artists who record and sign to a major label, want to be paid for their "intellectual property". It's why they signed that contract. Whether they're ever actually going to make a profit for the company is irrelevent to the issue. Theft is theft.

Now don't get me wrong, I do download many mp3 files. Many of them are legal downloads, like my 32 Legendary Pink Dots concerts, but many of them are quite illegal... (sorry, I won't mention what they are :-)

I have very little problem with the fact that I'm breaking the law when I do it and I see no need to try to justify those illegal actions. I want them so I get them.

(and no, the artist isn't always "getting paid". they do get checks but those are advances on future royalties. If those royalties don't come in, the artist is then in debt to their company)

Hardcoregirl · Post by **Hardcoregirl** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:42 am

Am I the only one that thinks someone shouldn't be bitching about already being filthy rich for playing music something they love anyways? Aren't they getting enough damn money? I know touring might be rough..but boohoo...

They should donate some to teachers who do the really important stuff.

I love music and I love my musician friends, but I think its really screwy that celebrities, sports players, etc, get all this money for playing music, acting or playing friggin' games.

I think musicians should do it because they want to share their talent, spread some sort of message or something...not for money.

Stoopid corporations, record execs, rich white men holding 98 percent of the worlds weath...grumble grumble bitch bitch...lol

The Prophet Mani · Post by **The Prophet Mani** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:56 am

I agree with Synthpopalooza fully. I ran a web-cast four years ago and even had written persmission from the record label to play an entire album by a single artist... but the RIAA had my account closed.

it was bunk

no one is stealing anything. this is something i've never understood about this whole issue.

You are quite wrong in this issue. The music created is considered "intellectual property".

Downloading an album illegally is no different than walking into a storefront and sticking a cd in your pocket.

When you purchase the cd you're not purchasing it for the disc itself. The disc is just the delivery method for the music on said disc, or, the "intellectual property" contained therein. If all one wanted was the disc, there are plenty of free AOL discs in every checkout lane of every K-Mart. Have at 'em!

theft is theft.

Nexxus23 · Post by **Nexxus23** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:58 am

Buttercup wrote:Am I the only one that thinks someone shouldn't be bitching about already being filthy rich for playing music something they love anyways? Aren't they getting enough damn money? I know touring might be rough..but boohoo...

They should donate some to teachers who do the really important stuff.

I love music and I love my musician friends, but I think its really screwy that celebrities, sports players, etc, get all this money for playing music, acting or playing friggin' games.

I think musicians should do it because they want to share their talent, spread some sort of message or something...not for money.

Stoopid corporations, record execs, rich white men holding 98 percent of the worlds weath...grumble grumble bitch bitch...lol

I'm joinin' Buttah in the Curmudgeon Corner!

*grumble grumble grumble*

The Prophet Mani · Post by **The Prophet Mani** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:08 am

Buttercup wrote:I think musicians should do it because they want to share their talent, spread some sort of message or something...not for money.

The same goes for computer programmers, sandwich artists, carpenters, police officers, oh, and teachers.

Don't blame Robert Smith for being rich. The fault lies with the millions of people who buy records by The Cure that made him so.

If the issue is truly important to you, instead of buying that "unimportant" album, give the $17 to a favorite teacher and do without the music. There's definately nothing wrong with doing that... in fact, I'd salute you for it.

white_darkness · Post by **white_darkness** » Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:10 am

I'm definitely in buttercup's boat on this one.

It's ridiculous how much these people are raking in for doing silly things.

I'm more than willing to admit though that an artist signed to a major label, unless the artist is a big name, is most likely in deep financial straights.

What happened to music having a message, being used for teaching, evoking emotions.

Sure the RIAA points out the decline in sales and uses file-sharing as their culprit, but really what difference does it make?

What about the possibility that the objective is to stifle what's becoming an effective form of advertising for smaller labels and bands? Most of the big company music is so ridiculously repetitive and low-quality (expect 3 songs on your typical album now worth listening to) that it's a joke to buy.

How often have any of us who do share, been browsing someone files seen something in the list we don't recognize, but know we like a fair portion of the rest of a person's stuff and decide to yank it, and discover a new band to track down singles, albums, etc for?

Plus 20 dollars for a CD? I sincerely doubt prices for production come to anywhere near that. A 5 dollar price drop would probably have a massive impact on sales. They've done similar things with DVD and people are still buying those, even though you can file share the movies too.