It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Say goodbye to your right to privacy...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 06:20 PM
link   
U.S. Sides with Record Labels in Internet Case


By Andy Sullivan
Reuters
Friday, April 18, 2003; 9:20 PM


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government sided with the recording industry in its dispute with Verizon Communications Inc. on Friday, saying a digital-copyright law invoked by record labels to track down Internet song-swappers did not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The move, while expected, came as a blow to the Internet provider as it struggles to shield its customers.

"We would have expected they would have recognized there are important privacy and safety issues beyond the narrow copyright claims here," Verizon Vice President Sarah Deutsch, who is also associate general counsel, told Reuters.

Verizon, and a recording-industry trade group have been in court since September, arguing over whether Verizon should be forced to help crack down on the online song-swapping that record labels blame for a decline in CD sales.

The Recording Industry Association of America says Verizon is required under law to help its members protect their copyrights. Verizon says it is willing to help, but that the law only applies to Web pages stored on its computers, not the "peer to peer" networks like Kazaa that merely travel across its wires.

A district court sided with the recording industry in January. Verizon appealed the decision, and is arguing that the names of suspected copyright violators should not be revealed in the meantime.

Verizon argues that the law in question, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, known as the DMCA, violates free-speech and due-process rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court in Washington, the Department of Justice said the law is not unconstitutional. The Justice Department is required to weigh in on cases where constitutional issues are raised.

Deutsch said she was disappointed that the Justice Department would take such a stand, as stalkers and other criminals could conceivably use the law to track down victims.

RIAA WELCOMES RULING

"The government's filing today supports the proposition that we have long advocated: copyright owners have a clear and unambiguous entitlement to determine who is infringing their copyrights online and that entitlement is constitutional," said Matt Oppenheimer, Senior Vice President for Business and Legal Affairs at the RIAA.

"Verizon's persistent efforts to protect copy thieves on pirate peer-to-peer networks will not succeed," he told Reuters.

Justice said the law did not violate the free-speech rights of everyday users because it is only targeted at those who violate copyrights.

"It is manifest that the DMCA's subpoena provision targets the identity of alleged copyright infringers, not spoken words or conduct commonly associated with expression," Justice said.

Justice also said that the law did not violate due-process protections because nothing in the Constitution specifically barred the investigative process set up by the DMCA, which requires record labels to get approval from a court clerk before asking Verizon or other Internet providers to surrender customer names.

Verizon argues that record labels should be required to get permission from a judge, rather than a clerk, a move that would add another legal hurdle to any copyright investigation.

Verizon says such a move is necessary to protect user privacy because otherwise any copyright holder -- or anybody claiming to be a copyright holder -- could easily obtain the name and address of any Internet user.




posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 06:26 PM
link   
well time to get rid of my p2p apps. seems like when something is popular, leave it to some cranky person to spoil it for everyone else.



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Well the P2P aps are a pain in the a$$ that we cant use them anymore, but what really sucks is that now it is TOO DAMN EASY for ANYONE to get your personal information...

Think about it...

If some ATS member posts some information, ANYONE can claim it is their information, file a subpeona and have our ISP give up our name, address, phone number, ect.



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 06:41 PM
link   
so we cant use p2p any more. Wtf that is so unfair.



posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The scary thing is if you USED (past tense) P2P at any time, and the RIAA happened to see what you had sitting in your shared files, YOU could have you info subpeonaed, even if it was a year ago, and havent used P2P since.



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 01:41 AM
link   
so i should get rid of my shared files?



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Is there a way for the people to appeal this? This is an invasion of our privacy. Maybe we can use this law to spy on the government computers. The law applies to everyone, not just non government people.



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Yup, WAY too easy to get IP, ISP, and such...
This little guy does it, NWO can too.




posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 01:51 AM
link   
That isnt my ip.



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Oh well, I was tired of kazaa anyway... I always download the wrong movies because some kid changed the filename...



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 04:38 AM
link   
What about mIRC?



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ilovepizza
so we cant use p2p any more. Wtf that is so unfair.


Sure you can... just don't use it to steal copyrighted material.

A lot of people are loosing sight of the real problem... music is the property of the musician, who has given exclusive distribution rights to the recording company. While there are certainly problems with the current business model of music distribution, it is the only model in place. If the people building P2P networks but as much energy into alternative payment models for musicians, we might have a more fair system by now, and real artists (not the popular crap we have now) might get heard, and they may actually be making some money.


Oh... and on the privacy issue, there is no guaranteed right to privacy for people who are breaking the law... and distributing copyrighted material without permission is indeed breaking the law.




[Edited on 20-4-2003 by William]



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ilovepizza
Is there a way for the people to appeal this? This is an invasion of our privacy. Maybe we can use this law to spy on the government computers. The law applies to everyone, not just non government people.


this is an interesting idea.....



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 09:13 AM
link   
One slight problem, the government likes the idea of "do as I say, not as I do" meaning that this law WILL NOT be used against the government.



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Yup...agree with you there.

Wait...doesn't the goverment bend the law to hide the secrets and scandels?

Most goverment officals i know have an IQ of a carrot!



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
One slight problem, the government likes the idea of "do as I say, not as I do" meaning that this law WILL NOT be used against the government.



I have no idea how you expect this law would cover any action against the government. Clue me in here.



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I'm still wondering what ever happened to the proposal of a file sharing service that would have required a small monthly fee to share files. I have heard of the possibility since the Napster days, but haven't heard of anyone doing it. I would be willing to pay a small monthly fee for unlimited sharing of files that could be dispersed to record labels, thereby compensating the musicians. It sounds like a win-win situation for both sides. Anyone know anything about a service like this? You could probably make a fortune if you were able to start something like this, with the approval of the record labels, etc.



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 06:46 PM
link   
William:

PLEEEAAASE tell me you dont actually buy into the RIAA arguement that each and every download equates to a lost CD sale??? There is absolutely NO evidence to support these claims!

The 4 university students that are being sued by the RIAA are accused of having about 1 million songs on thier LANs, at $150,000 per song, that comes out to be $150 BILLION damages that the RIAA is seeking. That is like more than the total amount of money generated by music since the gramophone was invented!!!!!!!!

And, you honestly dont believe that the individual artists are going to get any additional money recovered in these operations, do you? Many music contracts now actually cost the artist money by the time it expires, yet the music label fat cats grow fatter and richer.

But, the crux of the matter is that this is the death knell for internet privacy. Thanks to the DMCA, ANYONE can claim to be the holder of a copy right (no evidence has to be provided to prove that they are in fact the copy right holder) and alledge to a court clerk that anyone infringed on thier copy right (again, no evidence has to be produced that someone did in fact infringe of someones copy right, who may or may not actually hold said copy right) in order to get a court subpeona to find all kinds of information for anyone.

Let me put it this way:

If I, some joe blow off the street, walk into a court house, and alledge that William on ATS is infringing on my copy right of the ATS level bar codes, or the stars under everyones names, or the U2U function on ATS (notice that I dont have to give evidence that I in fact hold copyright on these features, or give evidence that William somehow infringed on them) I can STILL come out of the courthouse with a document I can send to your ISP and get all the personal information on you that I want.

What if instead of actually wanting to enforce a copyright, I am a criminal? What if I am a hacker? What if I am a stalker of some type? And I now have access to your personal information.

Do you really feel comfortable with that?



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well i guess it is time for p2p to go the way of the dinosaur. Its not like their not going to find another way to bend the rules so as to still be able to have the ability to trade files like they did before just with more anonymnity. I am burning my last cd tomorrow and then deleting grokster and all shared files............. BASTARDS



posted on Apr, 20 2003 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Im not removing sh*t. They can come to my house and pry the MP3s from my cold dead hands.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join