iiNet Says Complying With Anti-Piracy Complaints Would Violate Telecom Laws

from the privacy-anyone? dept

We've been following the lawsuit down in Australia, where AFACT, the local entertainment industry "anti-piracy" group, has sued ISP iiNet, complaining that the ISP refused to do anything when it would send over infringement notices. From the beginning, iiNet's response has been clear:
They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.
AFACT continues to insist that iiNet should be responsible for becoming copyright cops themselves, and had won an early battle, forcing iiNet to hand over "sample" records of users. However, Big Al points us to the latest news, where iiNet is claiming that not complying with AFACT's usual demands (it is handing over the sample data after working out the details) isn't just an issue of iiNet not wanting to be AFACT's enforcer, but that it violates Australia's telecom act, and could be a serious breach of privacy laws:
"Under the Act, it is illegal for iiNet to use customers' personal information in the manner demanded by AFACT without a court order or warrant. Breaches of the privacy provisions of the Act can attract a two-year gaol sentence."
Separately, iiNet noted:
"To examine customer communications on the basis of a third party's allegations would be a criminal act for us to engage in."

"Our starting position on this would be there is good public policy reasons for why Australia Post should not be opening your letters. And good reasons for why carriers should not be listening to your phone calls or looking at what you download. Our view is that would constitute a criminal offence."
It should come as no surprise that AFACT isn't buying this, calling it a "very novel" argument and one it hadn't seen before, and claiming that IP address information is not the sort of information that's meant to be included under the telco act, since it's not really "confidential." This case just gets more and more fun to watch (though, if I had to guess, iiNet's arguments probably won't prevail).


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 3:11pm

    Oh please

    Privacy concerns are about as 'novel' as AFACT is 'honest.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Matt, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 3:23pm

    The problem with this case as I understand it is that the AFACT's approach was if they supply IP addresses and ask for details it violates the telecommunications act's privacy provisions (So the whole RIAA method doesnt work so well here as they frown on lawsuits to gain information).

    iinet actually followed the law according to the Telecommunications Act by forwarding every complaint on to the authorities who are meant to investigate allegations (and supplied them with user information when requested).

    The act also protects Customers from being booted by iinet without cause (which is basically non payment, or illegal actions as verified by the courts). So when the AFACT came asking for the customer details (sorry handing them over is illegal) and for the customer to be booted (cant do that either) iinet sent all the information to the police and said please investigate and tell us what we need to do.


    So basically... if the AFACT win they have changed the Telecommunications Act.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 3:44pm

    iiNet is playing games.

    If copyright is a civil matter, "turning it over to police" is as meaningless as calling them cops when you don't get all of your chicken nuggets at Mickey Ds.

    If they want to play stupid, then the music industry should just sue them directly as the IP holder, and they can figure it out with their client after.

    They are being way too cute, and legally, cute usually gets you Tenenbaum'ed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    diabolic (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 3:58pm

    Good to know that some ISPs refuse to just roll over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    athe, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 3:59pm

    Re:

    No, they are following the enacted law - of AUSTRALIA...

    AFACT are correct in the fact that those laws may not include the users IP address, but they already had that, didn't they? Our privacy act (or parts of the telecommunications act) covers the users "confidential" data, such as name, address, etc.


    Cheers,
    athe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 4:08pm

    Re:

    Copyright is a civil matter.

    Breaching the telecom act by violating a customers privacy is a criminal matter.

    Demanding that a company commit a crime to deal with a civil infringement...how "cute".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Aug 20th, 2009 @ 4:09pm

    Re:

    How is standing up for their principles being "cute"? What do you even mean by "cute"? It's just an easy word to pull out of the air when you want to belittle someone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re:

    The record labels have no principles other than to make money even if they have to exploit the public to do it. Principles, lol.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 4:19pm

    Re:

    If you went into a store that you do business with and the store does have your address and some random person asks the employees for your address or phone number and they made up some reason like, "this person broke into my car" does the store have an obligation to give some stranger your personal information? Or anyone? Do they even have that right? No, there is a legal process they have to go through. For all the store knows I can be a telemarketer who wants to send junk mail to the persons address and call them to buy some product they don't want. Or I can be some crazy stalker.

    The same thing applies here. Otherwise I can go on IRC and find anyone's IP address and if I don't like that person because I disagree with him/her I can ask that persons ISP for their address and just make up some fake reason. Again, it won't work because there is a legal process they have to go through. The RIAA is no exception.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Re:

    If the RIAA wants someones personal information they have to play by the rules, just like anyone else. Someone can see me at a store and still not know where I live or my phone number, they can't simply ask the store owner for that information and make up some reason and expect to get the information. There are rules that should be followed, the RIAA must also play by the rules.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 6:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The problem is those rules are entirely one sided. Basically, the amount of effort required to prove the case "john doe" to be able to then go and get the information is almost senseless. Basically, this puts copyright holders in an insanely bad position to start with, because they don't have the ability to know who is stealing their stuff.

    It is on par with the "anonymous" bloggers. If the blog host doesn't want to take the heat, they need to learn how to point fingers appropriately.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And your point is?

    They're a BUSINESS. This isn't a murder or national security

    We're talking about an industry wanting to violate the rights of citizens so they can make money.

    If it costs too much to go after people, then you'd think SOMEONE would have the brains to realize that their business strategy is crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Translation: "Wahhhh, justice is too difficult."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 7:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not at all, if you weren't so attached to one side of the debate, you might see it more clearly.

    Honestly, if iiNet won't point to a user, they should get sued solidly themselves, iiNet and (california version) Does 1-99. Then iiNet can spend their money trying to dig themselves out of the hole they created.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    ..., Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "if you weren't so attached to one side of the debate, you might see it more clearly."

    Look in a mirror and say that

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, what's one sided is when the FCC pays attention to the RIAA becuase of something like this

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0152565837.shtml

    The RIAA actually has so much control over the FCC they actually expect the FCC to investigate this garbage.

    Yes, the laws are entirely one sided. They favor rich and powerful corporation at public expense. That's why copyrights and patents last way way too long and they keep getting extended. The laws are one sided, but not on the side of the people, they're on the side of the record labels and special interest groups. and despite that the RIAA et al want to continue taking away our freedoms and our rights and stripping away justice just to serve their purpose. It's nonsense. Please, don't give me your, "the laws are one sided garbage" like the RIAA is the victim here. They're not one sided in favor of the public. If that were so intellectual property wouldn't last nearly as long as it does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If the blog host doesn't want to take the heat, they need to learn how to point fingers appropriately."

    Fine, what's your first and last name. Then give me a picture with your drivers license right next to it and I want your IP address, I want mike to confirm it (since he should be allowed to point fingers), and I want you to write the IP address on a piece of paper and hold it up with your drivers license in the high quality picture. Post here.

    No, people shouldn't give away personal information about someone to a stranger anymore than a business should do such a thing. Random people can't just ask a blogger for the IP addresses of others. Just like if some random person called a business and asked about a customers personal information. What if I can just look at your nick, ask Mike for your IP address because you said something that somehow offends me, and then go to your ISP and get your address and then post it on techdirt. How would you appreciate that? What if the laws just allow any random person to do that? The laws should do no such thing. The RIAA is no exception. Why should we simply trust them? We shouldn't, especially given their history of being retarded ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0152565837.shtml ).

    "Basically, the amount of effort required to prove the case "john doe" to be able to then go and get the information is almost senseless."

    The RIAA needs to prove probable cause. If the RIAA has probable cause then they should have no problems proving it to a court. It should require little to no effort. Yet if they don't have probable cause then, yes, it would be very difficult to prove it. That's the whole point. So if you're arguing that it's difficult that just means they don't have probable cause. They don't get to decide on their own whether or not they have probable cause. Otherwise I can just decide right now, by my own standards, that I have probable cause to believe you broke into my house (assuming someone did) and demand your IP address and then demand your address from my ISP and receive it. NO, the system doesn't work that way. The RIAA is no exception.

    "Basically, this puts copyright holders in an insanely bad position to start with, because they don't have the ability to know who is stealing their stuff."

    So we should just allow them to inspect our houses with no probable cause at will at their arbitrary decision simply because to not allow them would not give them the ability to know who is stealing their stuff. People should simply be assumed guilty until proven innocent because there is the potential someone might be guilty and if we don't invade everyone's privacy then we can't know if you're stealing an artists stuff. Someone might have given you a CD last week with pirated stuff. With that logic we should just allow the RIAA to search your house right now at will without any intervention from courts or anyone. I don't know if you have pirated stuff, so lets all just search your house arbitrarily. Allowing such a thing opens the door to all sorts of abuses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Futhermore, letting anyone know the IP address of any other user upon request opens the doors to things like being hacked or DDOS attacks. We have a system in place to protect us from such nonsense. You have probable cause it should not be difficult at all to convince a court. You don't then of course you will have problems proving your case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and the next time something gets stolen from a store, since we can't know if you stole the money, we should just allow the police or store owners to arbitrarily raid your house and everyone else's house looking for what was stolen. Otherwise they can't know if you stole it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Kaine, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:43pm

    I had someone calling my phone making threats. The person was obviously an idiot because they didn't hide their phone number. So I called Telstra (the main provider in Australia) to try to get the details of the person who was threatening me. I was told that it was illegal for them to supply me those details.

    So how exactly do you justify personal details being released so that a company can make money when its illegal to release them in order to protect someone being threatened?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 8:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Honestly, if iiNet won't point to a user, they should get sued solidly themselves, iiNet and (california version) Does 1-99. Then iiNet can spend their money trying to dig themselves out of the hole they created."

    What the RIAA needs is to convince a court that there is probable cause so the court can issue a declaratory judgment saying that there is and requesting iiNet to provide the information needed. iiNet or the user may then appeal (or the user perhaps can ask iiNet to appeal on its behalf, kinda like if I had a credit card and wanted to dispute charges I can have the credit card fight the lawsuit on my behalf). but iiNet can't simply hand over personal information, it opens doors to all sorts of abuses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    diode, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    iiNet have said they are more than happy to "point to a user" if they are provided with sufficient evidence to warrant them doing so. What they are unwilling to do is hand over a user's information just because the music industry demands them to. If the music industry suspects a user is guilty of "legal infringement", they should be required to go through normal "legal channels" - just like everybody else. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to why this isn't fair? Is it favoring one side over the other?

    To look at it from another angle, think for a minute about what the music industry is demanding; they want the courts to hand over the power to enforce the law, AND to act completely independent of the traditional legal system.
    Do I even need to point out why granting a corporation this kind of power is a terrible idea? Do you honestly believe that any corporation given such power will treat anyone they suspect to be even a minor threat to their business with a single shred of fairness before bringing down the axe?

    You are right; we're all being incredibly one sided about this. It's funny how that happens when fundamental civil liberties are threatened, isn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "iiNet have said they are more than happy to "point to a user" if they are provided with sufficient evidence to warrant them doing so. What they are unwilling to do is hand over a user's information just because the music industry demands them to. If the music industry suspects a user is guilty of "legal infringement", they should be required to go through normal "legal channels" - just like everybody else. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to why this isn't fair? Is it favoring one side over the other?"

    There are so many issues, it is almost impossible to overcome.

    First is internet speed versus "real world" speed. By the time a court case meanders through the legal system even to the point of obliging iiNet to reveal client information, it could be months or years. When you consider that a song can be tranfered in minutes and a movie in hours, the potential for continued hard is incredibly high.

    Second, there is the data retained by the ISP. Let's say iiNet retains records for 90 days, but through legal wrangling, it takes 180 days to get a court order for the information (iiNet seems particularly interested in appealing every case). The actual record could be destroyed.

    Further, and this is important, all of this legal back and forth and actions is ONLY to get the customer information, so that a whole new legal process can start (and again takes years) to possibly get justice.

    There needs to be a legal shortcut in place here: an ISP claiming innocence via the innocent provider concept (such as the "section 230") rules should be required to do so by replacing themselves with their customer directly. Basically, if they say "we cannot stop this, because we are only a service provider", they should be obliged to state who they are providing service for. No "immediate cut off" or anything like that, they should just be obliged to say "this user was on this IP at the time in question" and end of story.

    It should always be so simple: Either iiNet is responsible for the activity on their network, or they indicate who is. There should not be a third choice that says "we agree something is wrong, but without a court order, we cannot point you in the right direction".

    If need be, the legal system needs to be adapted to allowed for a direct inquiry by the courts on short notice, on the basis of the sworn statement of the copyright holder. It shouldn't be any different than figuring out where a phone number is assigned or who the client is of a cell phone.

    Right now, users can hide behind a complicit ISP and operate with total impunity, knowing that the ISP is going to tie the process in legal knots for the next X years, by which time the user has cleared their computer completely, and destroyed any evidence of the file transfers.

    The system right now is remarkably one sided.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:20pm

    Re:

    The difference? The threats are a criminal and not civil matter. You call the police, you should them the phone number calling, and they act on it.

    If a copyright holder calls the police, they giggle and remind them it's a civil manner, and wish them good luck as the case wanders it's way through the justice system for a few years.

    Sort of a different deal, isn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "First is internet speed versus "real world" speed. By the time a court case meanders through the legal system even to the point of obliging iiNet to reveal client information, it could be months or years."

    If the RIAA doesn't have probable cause of course it will be difficult to convince a court of anything. What's wrong with that? Why should we let the RIAA decide if they have probable cause and set their own standards.

    "If need be, the legal system needs to be adapted to allowed for a direct inquiry by the courts on short notice, on the basis of the sworn statement of the copyright holder."

    No, this is not good enough. On the basis of sworn statements of the copyright holder? Why should we trust the RIAA or anything it says? Because they say so? Not good enough.

    "Basically, if they say "we cannot stop this, because we are only a service provider", they should be obliged to state who they are providing service for."

    First you must prove there is something to stop. Hence a court order.

    "It shouldn't be any different than figuring out where a phone number is assigned or who the client is of a cell phone."

    To some degree one can know where an IP address is assigned, usually the hostmask gives a general idea. But one cannot call up a phone company and arbitrarily ask for the exact address of the person.

    "There should not be a third choice that says "we agree something is wrong, but without a court order, we cannot point you in the right direction"."

    This should be the only option the ISP has.

    "The system right now is remarkably one sided."

    I agree, intellectual property lasts way too long and the laws are remarkably one sided in favor of rich and powerful corporations at public expense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 9:39pm

    Re: Re:

    "The difference? The threats are a criminal and not civil matter."

    and in criminal matters there is even more justification for finding information about someone than there is for civil matters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:24pm

    Re:

    An Ode to the AFACT (Family Guy FCC style)

    They defend their archaic business model and have a great big whinge
    They will claim its for the artists without the slightest guilty twinge
    And on basic human rights they are starting to impinge

    Here's the plain situation, there's no negotiation
    With the fellas at the AFACT

    Brainwashing the government with flagrant misinformation
    They will take everyone to court and make them pay reparations
    And they pat each others backs with hearty congratulations

    Take a tip, take a lesson,you'll never win by messing
    With the fellas at the AFACT

    And if you find yourself with some amazing song
    By playing it your doing something wrong
    (and then they'll sue you)

    So they sent this little warning, they're prepared to do their worst
    and they made up lots of figures, hoping the judge could be coerced
    I can think of quite another place they should stick their warning first.

    They definitely neurotic, and probably psychotic
    They're the fellas at the AFACT

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 10:34pm

    Running business with failing business models always leads to a fun read on Techdirt.

    It's so archaic that even if in a few years, the recording industry wins out and there is no longer piracy of any form, their business model would still fail.

    Maybe then they'll just start suing people for not buying music at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:01pm

    Re: Re:

    Nice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:17pm

    Re: Re:

    Corporate thugs feed us with nothing but lies and deceit.

    Corrupt politicians take bribes and demise for justice to take a backseat.

    No matter how much one tries, corporate and political coalitions devise ways to take control.

    Always on patrol against those who stand up for what's right. Because they won't let truth prevail without a fight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 20th, 2009 @ 11:27pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Prepare to stand up for what's right and what the constitution stands for.

    Guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and all the rights that people adore.

    Freedoms corporations abhor for those they disagree with.

    Nevertheless, these are rights people must be with and they must be defended. The tyranny ended with our rights unamended.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 6:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How do I answer this? You make it very difficult because you are not really understanding the issue.

    "If the RIAA doesn't have probable cause of course it will be difficult to convince a court of anything."

    The problem is that the courts are often not willing to work with or are not understanding of the types of proof that can be given. Imagine the need each time to get in front of a judge and spend 3 - 10 days explaining IP addresses, torrent technology, what data you have, etc, before the courts will even consider your request... and then they say it is a civil matter, you need to sue the ISP and spend months there before they might be obliged to give up the information.

    "First you must prove there is something to stop. Hence a court order."

    You are wrong here, you don't have to PROVE anything, just show that there is some cause. As I mentioned above, the problem is the technical nature of the proof, which is often beyond the reach of a judge. In the US, they might as an example appoint a special master to review the data and get back to the judge in 90 or 120 days. Not exactly friendly, is it?

    ISPs should not be in a position to legal protect their clients. If they are served and want to invoke the local version of "230 protections", then they should be obliged to point in the right direction. Right now they have it both ways, they can say "we are just a service provider" and "we can't say anything ever". So the uiser involved could be an ISP employee, and they can still do the same. It seems like standard truly leaning to one side only, the pirates.

    "I agree, intellectual property lasts way too long and the laws are remarkably one sided in favor of rich and powerful corporations at public expense."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It isn't like you read anything I posted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 21st, 2009 @ 6:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hahaha, its like you have never read any of the counter arguments. Your only argument so far is "the law is difficult and private companies should be allowed to completely abuse citizens rights for money".
    You didn't respond to a single darn thing about 4 posts up this comment thread.
    You are so full of shill it is not even funny.
    Adapt to the times or die and go away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 8:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The problem is that the courts are often not willing to work with or are not understanding of the types of proof that can be given."

    No, just because the RIAA can not provide probable cause does not mean that the courts are unwilling to work with or understand the types of proof to be given.

    "Imagine the need each time to get in front of a judge and spend 3 - 10 days explaining IP addresses, torrent technology, what data you have, etc, before the courts will even consider your request"

    So your best argument appeals to the imagination and not actual evidence. Wow, is that the best you can do?

    Just because a judge isn't quick to arbitrarily grant the RIAA free reign to invade our privacy doesn't mean s/he doesn't understand the technology.

    "and then they say it is a civil matter, you need to sue the ISP and spend months there before they might be obliged to give up the information."

    Again, if the RIAA doesn't have enough evidence to prove probable cause I should expect it to be difficult to do so.

    "You are wrong here, you don't have to PROVE anything, just show that there is some cause."

    Fine, let them demonstrate it to the satisfaction of a court, not simply to their own satisfaction.

    "ISPs should not be in a position to legal protect their clients."

    They should have an obligation to do so, I don't expect any company I do business with to arbitrarily give away my personal information to anyone who requests it.

    "Right now they have it both ways, they can say "we are just a service provider" and "we can't say anything ever"."

    No, they can say something, demonstrate probable cause to a court first.

    "It seems like standard truly leaning to one side only, the pirates."

    First of all, society and the laws do not owe the RIAA or anyone a monopoly on anything. We simply do not owe them patents or copyright. So the fact that we grant intellectual property and allow it to last almost forever in and of itself is entirely one sided in favor of rich and powerful corporations at public expense. On top of that you want to make things MORE one sided by giving intellectual property holders free reign to invade our privacy at will? We should tolerate no such ting.

    "It isn't like you read anything I posted."

    Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't read what you posted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, you are so smart - explain to me the process for a copyright charge against someone on iiNet.

    Good luck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Find probable cause, convince a court to compel the ISP to hand over the required information, and try the person. This is what the RIAA is getting paid to do right, to do a little bit of work? What, they don't want to do any work whatsoever so instead they want tyrant reign over everyone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Heck, the RIAA is so lazy they can't even keep track of their own labels to give to people.

    ""The RIAA lists its member labels on their website [1]. However, their website lists not only includes RIAA labels but non-RIAA labels that are distributors that report to the RIAA. The site is outdated and has not been updated since 2003.""

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels

    (though that text was omitted for whatever reason, it's still true as one can see from http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members which doesn't even seem to work right now)

    Even a third party must keep track of its members

    http://www.riaaradar.com/

    This is ridiculous, they can't even keep an updated list of who they sign?

    We even had discussions here on techdirt about how they don't keep accurate inventory complaining something about how difficult it is so it's difficult for them to properly pay their artists. Reliable inventory systems have been around for a long time, what, they can't even keep proper inventory?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This isn't an issue of its' too difficult for the RIAA to do its job, it's an issue of the RIAA is too lazy to do anything so they want short cuts. Period. They want government granted rent money and they don't want to do any work for it. If they want to make money they have to do work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Here is the post on the RIAA and not being able to provide accurate accounting information to bands.

    "So Why Can't Major Record Labels Provide Accurate Accounting To Bands?"

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090619/0323015288.shtml

    You know why? Because they're lazy, they want to make money and not do any work. Accurate and cheap to implement inventory systems have been around for years (just ask Wal Mart) but the RIAA, time after time, wants laws that allow it to make money and not do any work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Welcome to the RIAA slamfest.

    You might want to mention that the president is ugly and his mother dresses him funny too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 21st, 2009 @ 7:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, aren't you a retard. You can't sue someone for refusing to do something ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL.

    Next thing, you'll want people suing other people for NOT BREAKING AND ENTERING other people's homes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This