Chilling news...

**maarten** · January 23rd, 2003, 02:22 AM

Net provider ordered to identify song-swapper

By BOB KEEFE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

In a ruling that could test the notion of privacy on the Internet, a federal judge on Tuesday ordered Verizon Communications to reveal the name of a customer who allegedly swapped more than 600 copyrighted songs in a single day over the Web.

The ruling is a major victory for the recording industry but could send a chill through millions of Americans who swap music, films and other material online.

It upholds a subpoena issued last July ordering Verizon's Internet subsidiary to supply the name of the song-swapper as part of the industry's ongoing fight against music piracy.

Verizon refused to comply, citing the privacy of its customers.

Verizon said it will appeal the ruling.

"The court's decision has troubling ramifications for consumers, service providers and the growth of the Internet," Sarah Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for Verizon, said in a statement.

"It opens the door for anyone who makes a mere allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private subscriber information without the due process protections afforded by the courts.

"This case will have a chilling effect on private communications, such as e-mail, surfing the Internet or the sending of files between private parties," she said.

According to court documents, the anonymous file-swapper, thought to reside in Pittsburgh, exchanged more than 600 songs in a single day using software provided by a service called Kazaa.

The service is similar to that of now-defunct Napster, which pioneered music-swapping on the Internet before it was shut down amid a flurry of recording industry lawsuits.

:oops:

**QUINNY** · January 23rd, 2003, 05:08 AM

Maarten: No big deal. I thought the US government had access to every fax and email anyway.
600 swaps in one day is NOT casual downloading eh?

**K-Bee** · January 23rd, 2003, 10:08 AM

We've had cases like that in Denmark too.
Internet providers were forced to give out the names and addresses of more than than 80 customers, who was believed to take part in illegal sharing of music files on both KAZAA & the E-donkey netvork.

Rumour has it, that the danish record industry actually put out danish files on the network in order to make people dl them. When they did, their IP adresses were noticed and BANG!!! Fines all over the place :(. There's a major trial going on in danish courts at the moment. Their methods of tricking people into doing something illegal is considered an invasion of privacy.

sales has decreased by 20% throughout the last year over here. it is a big problem indeed.

**DJ-Pir** · January 23rd, 2003, 04:43 PM

Things had to get to this sooner or later, let's hope that the juges will let privacy prevale over the interests of the record companies, even though i feel that someone who can download or have people download 600 tunes in a day's time is doing something more than just a hobby.

Here in Holland there's a foundation called BREIN who are actually telling people to remove mp3 files from their websites or else they can await law suits and criminal prosecution, the frightening thing is the fact that these people do not share commercially available music but just (homemade) mixes and old disco/dance stuff.
So much for sharing the memories i guess.... :(

**Jimmy-Michaels** · January 23rd, 2003, 08:52 PM

:evil: Seeing **** like this just pisses me off!!! Ya know, like I said a while ago when Bernie's great program shut down..these damn suit and tie fuckbags need to just go find somone else to harrass to get their damn control freak jollys off. I understand about laws agenst brand new material that is selling in stores, etc.. But the fact and reality of the matter is, sharing great classic, obscure and long out of print disco music is no money loss to no one accept possibly the rip off artists out there who sell Candido 12"s on ebay for 200 bux lol. Also, the sharing method is a way to introduce people to the way burried disco tracks and spread this great music so it may possibly be reissued someday to CD. As for me, when I get mp3s of stuff, I still hunt for the vinyl cause I cant very well do mixed sets with an mp3 lol. So, all I have to say on this matter is...suit and tie fuckbags...go to hell !!!

DJ Jimmy M

**QUINNY** · January 24th, 2003, 02:59 AM

Here We Go Again!!!!!!!!!!
For what I hope is the last time.
The music biz is not in the music biz for its own health or that of its patrons. It is there to make money, for everyone who considers music to be their living. Would you same guys feel any worse about ripping off a small time, one man operation? No. You just want to indulge your own greed at the lowest possible price. If that price is zero then that makes it more than acceptable eh? Just who do you think you are kidding?
Do you expect to consume any other commercial product on this planet for free???????
People's livelyhoods are at risk here, from the tea boy in the studio to the fat cat record company executive. Everyone in the chain (including musicians) gets squeeezed if less music is bought and more is shared. File swapping is a form of bartering. Although no money may swap hands, commercial advantage is being made, because those tracks/mixes that are swapped for nothing, would cost something on the open market. Try telling the IRS that you've lived all year by bartering. They'll soon slap a hefty tax bill on you.

BTW: Are record company executives the only rich guys out there???? Let's get real, people.

600 files in one day really is taking the piss......BIG TIME.

**DJ-Pir** · January 24th, 2003, 04:01 AM

Quinny wrote :

>You just want to indulge your own greed at the lowest possible price
Nope, sorry but i buy all music i want, just because i consider an mp3 file a last resource substitute that can't replace the real thing, i'd be more than happy to pay the full new price for any say John Davis or Cerrone or Ceglia/Vitteri/Levan sets on cd or whatever old oop stuff.

>Do you expect to consume any other commercial product on this planet for free????
No again, i work my %ss off to pay for my family and my hobbies, including searching for and buying records from way back.

>File swapping is a form of bartering. Although no money may swap hands, commercial advantage is being made, because those tracks/mixes that are swapped for nothing, would cost something on the open market.
This does'n count for something i produce for a handful of friends IMHO, as far as sharing commercial stuff is concerned you are right.
If i go a bit further in your line of thought i could'n paint my mothers house because i am robbing the painter :roll:

>Let's get real, people
I am, hopefully i haven't offended you, just felt a bit attacked unjust, had the need to explain my point of view, being that file sharing is illegal for all commercial music and not for oop or homemade tracks.
Let's just hope that privacy isn't sacrificed without just cause, otherwise we'll all be screened in a few years time. 8)

**QUINNY** · January 24th, 2003, 04:09 AM

But we already are screened. That's the point, especially since 9/11. So governments are going to sit back and let terrorists plot their schemes in complete privacy? I don't think so. Unpalatable maybe, but reality, yes.

**DJ-Pir** · January 24th, 2003, 04:47 AM

Quinny,

Can't say anything else than yes you're right, in that light.

Maybe i have to think more before i write :-?

Back 2 music now.......

**nrgbeat** · January 24th, 2003, 07:04 AM

Let me see if I have this straight. Downloading music causes the artists to lose money right?

If I download a Whitney Houston song, she won't be able to buy any crack this week.

If I download an R. Kelly song, he won't be able to buy any child porn this week.

If I download a Diana Ross song, she won't be able to buy any booze this week.

Ok I won't download.

**QUINNY** · January 24th, 2003, 07:57 AM

No one said musicians are perfect. I guess there's not one downloader(sorry freeloader) who takes crack, is into child porn, is an alcoholic. People who live in greenhouses........

**Nano** · January 24th, 2003, 02:24 PM

Hey guys, you're falling into Quinny's trap. Don't you know he just loves these debates? Anyway, there's lot of old threads regarding the downloading discussion. It's pretty boring to repeat ourselves.

Now if you want to get into something DIFFERENT about this, here's my take. I remember asking myself in the past, for example when the labels criticized Virgin for releasing music tapes with one side blank "to record whatever you like" (this in the midst of the analog tape recordings boom)... Well, I kept asking myself how come these companies doesn't sue TDK or BASF for selling those tapes, or the tape deck producers like JVC or Sony? The only answer I could guess was, because the labels have some kind of relation with these "competition" companies.

This seemed confirmed when Sony buyed CBS. On the other hand, Sony now produces music, films, and virgin tapes & CD-Rs to record those music and films. So this group participates in the RIAA, and at the same time sells the instruments to those being sued by the RIAA. What's happening here?

I think we could talk about these corporate matters, as long as we don't stick to the "it's good/it's bad to download because..." issue. I mean, we all know by now what each one of us think about that, huh?

**K-Bee** · January 25th, 2003, 02:45 AM

Funny you should bring the empty Virgin sides up, Nano
Don't have any of them but I do own an old Hi Nrg megamix that came out on Ramshorn and that was on vinyl. I felt so ripped off when I bought it.

**QUINNY** · January 25th, 2003, 08:15 AM

Nano: There's no trap and I don't particularly like these debates. In a better world people would have stronger morals and ethics and the question wouldn't even arise. In the meantime I'll put the music biz side of the argument, just to prick the odd conscience.
The blank Virgin tapes were merely an (ill thought of) attempt by Virgin to sell a few more titles. It largely failed 'cos it didn't dent the sales of the other companies enough to make them follow suit. Did they cost more, I can't remember?
Yes, there are obvious clashes of interest in record companies being vendors of blank materials. I guess it's their way of diversifying so that if one market goes down they still get their bite of the cherry. You may as well be friendly with a potential enemy. Put it down to Globalisation, but there's no conspiracy. Hell, Governments take their tax cuts from tobacco and booze whilst extolling the virtues of not smoking and drinking less alcohol. That's the world we live in.

**Boodikka** · January 26th, 2003, 12:49 PM

There is at least one DSL provider who EXPRESSLY forbids the use of p-t-p networks: Optimum Online, owned by Cablevision (or Cabalvision, as I like to refer to them. HATE 'EM!). If you use their DSL service there is a clause that states that the use of file-sharing services such as WinMx is a violation of service.

BTW, let's not cry too much for the music industry. There are plenty of pop artists from the 50's and 60's who were never paid their fair share of anything by these masters of avarice. Even today, "recording contracts" (read: indentured servitude contracts) lead to situations suffered by groups such as TLC. My Di worked for Atlantic for years and she can tell you that the artist's interests and well-being are the music industry's LAST concern (unless you are an A-lister).

**maarten** · January 27th, 2003, 06:35 AM

I just wanted to say that the only reason I posted the article is to warn my friends states-side. I do not want to take sides either side of the debate.

Hi Boodi!