| Drakonix |
27-01-03 02:17 PM |
Scorching article against RIAA by ComputerUser Magazine's Editor
It's somewhat comforting to see mainline media notice the game played by the RIAA and it's impact on everyday privacy issues.
From ComputerUser Newsletter:
Quote:
A recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge John Bates
would force Verizon to reveal the identity of an alleged MP3
downloader. This is troubling news because it sets a very
bad precedent. If all ISPs are required to reveal the
identities of users accused of illegal behavior, private
organizations like the RIAA could legally participate in
witch hunts to roust out both innocent and guilty citizens
alike. While I am concerned about Big Brother's snooping in
such programs as the Total Information Awareness Act, I am
mortified by the notion of corporations and their front
organizations receiving court orders to pursue private
citizens. Fortunately, Verizon will appeal on these very
principles and hopefully it will win. If the appeal fails,
not just our privacy, but the nature of our Internet
experience could be forever changed.
You might think I'm stretching precedent a little bit with
these melodramatic statements. But the language of the
ruling suggests otherwise. Judge Bates wrote, the 1998
Digital Copyright act [which the RIAA used to defeat Verizon
in court] "applies to all Internet service providers ... not
just to those service providers storing information on a
system or network at the discretion of a user." Given the
scope of the 1998 act, the ruling applies not only to music
swapping, but to any violations of copyright law as narrowed
by the act. These could include software, text, movies, or
indeed any intellectual property. Individuals or companies
that believe they are sharing information as part of the
fair-use provisions of our copyright law could be treated as
guilty until proven innocent by private companies or
overzealous organizations like the RIAA.
Other consequences to the business of Internet use are just
as sobering. The liability overhead placed on ISPs alone
would put many of them out of business. ISPs would be faced
with a very tough dilemma: Violate the privacy of their
customers routinely or face Verizon's legal plight, which
will be expensive. While Verizon can afford the legal
battle, hundreds of independent ISPs would either knuckle
under or go under. If they knuckle under, they face possible
privacy litigation, which could be as expensive as fighting
the copyright violation claims. Suffice to say that
independent ISPs are rooting for their archrival Verizon in
the appeal.
If the appeal fails, users can take heart that organizations
such as the RIAA cannot go after all intellectual-property
users. The herd moves on even though the outer fringes are
preyed upon. And, assuming the user's name is released, the
RIAA still has to prove that he did what it says he did.
There are all sorts of ways of spoofing digital identity
that put an element of doubt into the civil case. And
identity-cloaking devices will always outsmart the RIAA's
vigilance, as Kazaa and dozens of others stepped in when
Napster fell. Some of these methods will increase the
possibility of false accusations. At some point, even the
RIAA cannot shield its member companies--AOL Time Warner's
Warner Music; Sony Music of Sony Corp; Bertelsmann AG's BMG;
Universal Music Group of Vivendi Universal and EMI Group Plc.
--from the negative publicity false accusations and spurious
litigation bring.
I'm left wondering when the recording industry will finally
get it. The Internet has forever changed the way music is
created and shared. As Bob Dylan sang, "Your old road is
rapidly aging/please get out of the new one if you can't
lend your hand." At any rate, hunting down and suing some of
your best customers is no way to do business.
For more information:
http://www.computeruser.com/newsletter/7955.html
-- James Mathewson is editor of ComputerUser magazine and
ComputerUser.com.
Send your thoughts to newsletter-feedback@computeruser.com
|
|
