Record Labels Sue Verizon After ISP 'Buried Head In Sand' Over Subscribers' Piracy (torrentfreak.com) 144
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Just before the weekend, dozens of record labels including UMG, Warner, and Sony, filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon at a New York federal court. In common with previous lawsuits that accused rivals of similar inaction, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless), stand accused of assisting subscribers to download and share pirated music, by not doing enough to stop them. The labels' complaint introduces Verizon as one of the largest ISPs in the country, one that "knowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates."
Knowledge of infringement, the labels say, was established at Verizon over a period of several years during which it received "hundreds of thousands" of copyright notices, referencing instances of infringement allegedly carried out by its subscribers. The complaint cites Verizon subscribers' persistent use of BitTorrent networks to download and share pirated music, with Verizon allegedly failing to curtail their activity. "While Verizon is famous for its 'Can you hear me now?' advertising campaign, it has intentionally chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners. Instead of taking action in response to those infringement notices as the law requires, Verizon ignored Plaintiffs' notices and buried its head in the sand," the labels write.
"Undeterred, infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs' notices continued to use Verizon's services to infringe Plaintiffs' copyrights with impunity. Meanwhile, Verizon continued to provide its high-speed service to thousands of known repeat infringers so it could continue to collect millions of dollars from them." Through this lawsuit, which references piracy of songs recorded by artists including The Rolling Stones, Ariana Grande, Bob Dylan, Bruno Mars, Elvis Presley, Dua Lipa, Drake, and others, the labels suggest that Verizon will have no choice but to hear them now. [...]
Attached to the complaint, Exhibit A contains a non-exhaustive list of the plaintiffs' copyright works allegedly infringed by Verizon's subscribers. The document is over 400 pages long, with each track listed representing potential liability for Verizon as a willful, intentional, and purposeful contributory infringer, the complaint notes. This inevitably leads to claims based on maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed on Count I (contributory infringement). The statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringed work is also applied to Count II (vicarious infringement), based on the labels' claim that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from the direct infringements of its subscribers. The labels' complaint can be found here (PDF).
Knowledge of infringement, the labels say, was established at Verizon over a period of several years during which it received "hundreds of thousands" of copyright notices, referencing instances of infringement allegedly carried out by its subscribers. The complaint cites Verizon subscribers' persistent use of BitTorrent networks to download and share pirated music, with Verizon allegedly failing to curtail their activity. "While Verizon is famous for its 'Can you hear me now?' advertising campaign, it has intentionally chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners. Instead of taking action in response to those infringement notices as the law requires, Verizon ignored Plaintiffs' notices and buried its head in the sand," the labels write.
"Undeterred, infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs' notices continued to use Verizon's services to infringe Plaintiffs' copyrights with impunity. Meanwhile, Verizon continued to provide its high-speed service to thousands of known repeat infringers so it could continue to collect millions of dollars from them." Through this lawsuit, which references piracy of songs recorded by artists including The Rolling Stones, Ariana Grande, Bob Dylan, Bruno Mars, Elvis Presley, Dua Lipa, Drake, and others, the labels suggest that Verizon will have no choice but to hear them now. [...]
Attached to the complaint, Exhibit A contains a non-exhaustive list of the plaintiffs' copyright works allegedly infringed by Verizon's subscribers. The document is over 400 pages long, with each track listed representing potential liability for Verizon as a willful, intentional, and purposeful contributory infringer, the complaint notes. This inevitably leads to claims based on maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed on Count I (contributory infringement). The statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringed work is also applied to Count II (vicarious infringement), based on the labels' claim that Verizon derived a direct financial benefit from the direct infringements of its subscribers. The labels' complaint can be found here (PDF).
Shall we sue car manufacturers (Score:4, Insightful)
for enabling shoplifting?
if gun manufactures can get off ISP's should as we (Score:4, Insightful)
if gun manufactures can get off ISP's should as well?
Re: if gun manufactures can get off ISP's should a (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Its not even remotely similar. The gun manufacture is no longer in possession of the gun or material control of the gun; the automaker is in a similar position with respect to the car used in crime.
The ISP on the other hand - still very much owns, and controls their network.
A more interesting question is could a leasing company be made accountable for a automobile used in a crime, or a lender who has possession of the title; especially if they have one of those trackers/disable the car if you don't pay devi
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
More like Dept of Transport is liable for owning the network of roads that criminals use on a daily basis of which all state and federal agencies are well aware off yet little is done to prevent criminals from using roads....
Re: (Score:2)
That is actually a valid application for civil immunity.
I would however completely support holding some of those private turnpike operators to account.
Re: (Score:3)
I like the turnpike operator analogy to Verizon, in this case.
The turnpike operator could certainly be served a warrant (or already have some preexisting agreement with the police to exchange data) to provide information on the vehicles that passed through at the various checkpoints and at any cameras they have along the way. But they wouldn't be held financially liable for any crimes they failed to prevent from passing on their roads; Especially so for analogous crimes (like someone transporting a thumb dr
Re: (Score:2)
There is difference between civil and criminal liabilities where. We should not lose sight of that.
Verizon should be doing more to identify and STOP people from misusing their network. Slashdot will cry but yes they should be looking for traffic patterns that are consistent with various types of abuse and having a conversation with those customers to see if what they are doing is actually abusive and if it is terminating their accounts.
Done 100 DNS lookups for piratebay.se followed by gigs of VPN/bittorent
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon should be doing more to identify and STOP people from misusing their network. ... Done 100 DNS lookups for piratebay.se followed by gigs of VPN/bittorent traffic. - They should be doing a 'hey what's going dude?'
IMO, that would be more than they should be doing, and certainly more than they should be REQUIRED to do. That said, I'll absolutely agree that they can and should be detecting and acting on major network abuses, and I think most would agree with that (ex. DDOS attacks and such), so there's some room for debate on where to draw the lines.
I don't think downloads should be considered at all, or only in very very VERY extreme cases. And I'm pretty certain those extremes are already monitored and acted upon (ex
Re: (Score:3)
No, it absolutely should not be done that way. There's countless legal reasons why someone would have that traffic pattern. Verizon can not be expected to know who has the rights to every thing on the internet, and users shouldn't have to try to justify their use. And, who's going to have these conversations? Who's going to decide if a user's traffic is misuse or not after the conversa
Re: if gun manufactures can get off ISP's should (Score:3)
"Honestly I would say that it should instead go this way: an IP rights holder finds infringement, gets a warrant, the ISP passes the user's information to the IP rights holder, and the IP rights holder does their own enforcement."
Warrant? ITYM subpoena. They should have to file a case and not just make a complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: if gun manufactures can get off ISP's should (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case telecoms companies should also be fully liable for any losses caused by scammers using phone lines to defraud people.
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of assumes the ISP has the technical ability to detect such infringing activity, accurately distinguish it from non-infringing activity, and stop it, in real time. I'm not aware of any technology that can achieve that; can you explain how they should be doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
if gun manufactures can get off ISP's should as well?
I suppose Greed buried in the very foundation of US Capitalism allows gun manufacturers to hold on to an Inalienable Right a bit longer than American citizens have allowed it to be stripped from them.
Gun bans, registrations, limitations, confiscations, and licensed CCW tracking and monitoring in order to defend ones self in the most direct and personal way, are all sacrifices that are legally abused at every level of US government below the one secured in the Constitution. County, City, and State can all a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That order would be unconstitutional. If the militia is disbanded you take your rifle and go home. You are still a member of "the people" after all.
If you did agree to turn in your gun, The Fifth Amendment would then require the government to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to read the Constitution instead of blathering like an idiot.
"Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but if you take the intentions of the writers of the constituin at the time they wrote it there wouldn't be any ammendments,
Uh, then why did they include the Bill of Rights as amendments and establish a process for amending the Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
for enabling shoplifting?
Sure. If pressing the unlock button on your auto keyfob forced every cash register drawer to open and auto manufacturers did nothing about that problem for years, resulting in massive crime.
Good thing my analogy doesn’t mirror fact any more than yours does.
Re: (Score:2)
for enabling shoplifting?
Sure. If pressing the unlock button on your auto keyfob forced every cash register drawer to open and auto manufacturers did nothing about that problem for years, resulting in massive crime.
Good thing my analogy doesn’t mirror fact any more than yours does.
Well, that sounds like a problem of a cash register sellers? By your own logic, lets punish people who lay roads for piracy as well, as they do enable it in some way shape or form. I am 1000% sure about it.
Re:Shall we sue car manufacturers (Score:5, Insightful)
How the fuck are major record labels anything to do with the 'New Left'? Stop with such divisive bullshit. This is a problem people of all political persuasions can get behind and push for change together. It's major Corporations who are coming up with this nonsense, not ordinary people, no matter which way they lean politically. Divisive nonsense like yours simply makes it harder to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shall we sue car manufacturers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shall we sue car manufacturers (Score:4, Insightful)
What complete and utter bullshit. If you are calling Capitalist Corporations Left then the term has lost all meaning. Not that it ever had much meaning in the first place. Just like Woke and other bullshit terms that serve only as cover for people's prejudice. These days anything the Right dislike is called Far Left, even if it's something they themselves do.
If Corporations are doing something it's because their customers want them to, not because they have become Left. Isn't that how Free-Market Capitalism is supposed to work? Isn't that supposed to be why regulations are deemed unnecessary? The theory the Right put out is that Companies will be held to account by their customers, who will remove custom from them if they act badly, and put them out of business. But then any time this happens and Companies bend because of it the Right call foul and accuse the Corporations of being Far Left. It's trying to have it both ways. Either regulate them properly through Government, or leave it to customers and put up with whatever happens as a consequence. Anything else is hypocritcal bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
What complete and utter bullshit. If you are calling Capitalist Corporations Left then the term has lost all meaning. Not that it ever had much meaning in the first place. Just like Woke and other bullshit terms that serve only as cover for people's prejudice. These days anything the Right dislike is called Far Left, even if it's something they themselves do.
This.
There isn't even a left in the US. Even Bernie Sanders is right of some of the centre right European parties. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
It doesn't matter if you're left or right, what matters is how far you go. Extremists want to paint it as a left vs right issue when it's really a conflict between moderates and extremists.
Re: (Score:3)
What complete and utter bullshit. If you are calling Capitalist Corporations Left then the term has lost all meaning. Not that it ever had much meaning in the first place. Just like Woke and other bullshit terms that serve only as cover for people's prejudice. These days anything the Right dislike is called Far Left, even if it's something they themselves do.
If Corporations are doing something it's because their customers want them to, not because they have become Left. Isn't that how Free-Market Capitalism is supposed to work? Isn't that supposed to be why regulations are deemed unnecessary? The theory the Right put out is that Companies will be held to account by their customers, who will remove custom from them if they act badly, and put them out of business. But then any time this happens and Companies bend because of it the Right call foul and accuse the Corporations of being Far Left. It's trying to have it both ways. Either regulate them properly through Government, or leave it to customers and put up with whatever happens as a consequence. Anything else is hypocritical bullshit.
Its because "the left" is just a placeholder for everything Republicans are afraid of or don't like. You have cancer? "The Left" is responsible. You got drunk and wrecked your car? "The Left" is somehow at fault. You're a Republican politician caught soliciting sex in an airport bathroom? Obviously its because "The Left" somehow tricked or brainwashed you.
Its exactly the same modus operandi with illegal aliens, and before them the Irish/Blacks/Chinese/Italians/etc - "waaah my life sucks because of some g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Shall we sue car manufacturers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Corporations are doing something it's because their customers want them to, not because they have become Left.
Oh yeah, totally organic. Like Disney? New Trek? Which customers demanded that IBM's CEO order its executives to not hire "white males?"
LOL
So is it your theory that the largest capitalistic companies in America are throwing money away because they've been infiltrated by the left who are doing all these things, and that's because it's too unfathomable for you to believe that's what their millions of customers want?
Wake up call! There's lots of people that want that. I don't want the boardrooms of the biggest companies filled with nothing but old white men (and I am one). The composition of these big companies has been shifting to represent the
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what's happened. They've been both infiltrated and bullied by woke activists.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the lawsuit alleges. Racial and sexual discrimination are wrong and illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I presented observable facts anyone who isn't a blindly stupid Dunning Kruger leftist is fully aware of and sees happening in every day life.
You spewed leftist Narrative nonsense that no adult with an IQ over 90 and a drop of intellectual honesty would agree with.
We're done here. You stepped up, got smashed, now you'll co e back a dozen times crying leftist tears and calling me names yet back up your trash with nothing and your mindless echo chamber pals will cheer you on. Pile in, add nothing, mod you up, me down and you'll still be wrong.
Just saving us the trouble of the next dozen posts. I've done this with your type countless times.
Allow me to summarize: Left left leftists left LEFT leftists LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT!!!!!!
Re: Shall we sue car manufacturers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a dog in this fight, but, many would argue that the majority of KM's philosophies HAVE been implemented in the 20th century, Collective Bargaining, Workers Rights, that sort of thing arguably was better in the latter part of the 20th century, than it was 100 years before... because of
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere did I say that I supported Karl Marx. And nowhere did you respond to the dilemma that was the point of my post. Which is it? Should Karl Marx not be considered leftist? Or should corporations not be considered leftist?
That idiot won't actually respond to anything of note. When it comes down a simple question, he'll deflect and turn tail and run, as 10095012 did above:
You spewed leftist Narrative nonsense that no adult with an IQ over 90 and a drop of intellectual honesty would agree with. We're done here. ...
Re: (Score:2)
They're not, they just taking a page out of the new playbook of the left.
Actually, the leftist position on intellectual property rights is that they're badly in need of reform, with an emphasis on shorter copyright duration and greater public access to artistic works. So, you'd be less likely to have situations where anybody is getting sued for sharing copies of songs from deceased musicians.
The belief that ownership of a creative work can outlive its creator, with the copyright passing down through familial generations or to an essentially immortal corporation, aligns far more
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the tactic of suing utilities for things they can't reasonably be expected to regulate. Some assholes in OR or WA are suing a couple of mom and pop gas stations for global warming, for god's sake. A similar one in Hawaii, too. Lots of these bullshit lawsuits in ultra blue areas where they can guarantee the jury will vote how they want.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not, they just taking a page out of the new playbook of the left.
Holy fuck you must live your life cowering in fear that "the left" could be hiding in the shadows, around every corner...
Re: (Score:2)
For decades, big road has done nothing about the tens of thousands of people who die on them each year! Why were they not actively installing special vehicle-slowing pavement?
Why were they not policing destinations of the people who use the roads to go to dangerous theme parks?
These lawsuits need to be stopped. It's starting to make economic activity even more difficult, legislating via jury. But no anti-democratic behavior is too anti-democratic for the new left. So fuck it, go on ahead, destroy democracaaay, if it means you get your way. There is no truth, no right and wrong anymore, just power and who gets to yield it and what they want, right?
It's like the left comes out with a new, never before though of way to destroy western civilization every day.
I was shocked that I actually agreed with you on something, but then it all turned into another one of your rambling tirades against the "left".
Re: (Score:2)
Some car manufacturers were sued because they did not make their cars harder to be broken into and lost in court because they did not take action.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/ma... [foxbusiness.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This misses the point.
The car is the mode of physical transportation. The ISP is the mode of data transportation.
The car is used to transport stolen goods. The ISP is used to transport stolen data (digital music).
Shoplifters don't need to break into a car to use it for shoplifting. They just use their own.
How is the ISP supposed to know whether that music download is licensed or not? It's the websites that host the stuff that should be sued, not the ISPs. The websites are the fences.
Re: (Score:2)
> How is the ISP supposed to know whether that music download is licensed or not?
Inb4 corporations lobby for network packets to have an Evil Bit [wikipedia.org]. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'll be! I'm going to start adding that check to my code right away!
And while we're at it, I want a "bug bit" that tells me when there's a bug in my code.
Re: Shall we sue car manufacturers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say ram raiding is closer, but yeah, this is definitely special pleading.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair (Score:4, Informative)
If the record companies want a carrier to do work for them, they should pay for it.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Informative)
If the record companies want a carrier to do work for them, they should pay for it.
https://torrentfreak.com/image... [torrentfreak.com]
62. Through one channel, Verizon claims to allow copyright holders to send P2P
notices through a so-called “Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program,” but it has attached such onerous
conditions to participation that the program is rendered a nullity. Not only has Verizon required
participants to pay burdensome fees for simple, automated processes like Internet Protocol (“IP”)
address lookups and notice forwarding, but participants have been required to waive their
copyright claims, broadly indemnify Verizon, and, tellingly, keep the terms of the program
confidential. Verizon has also limited the number of notices it will forward pursuant to the
program.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
This is hilarious. Capitalists fighting over nickel and diming behavior. Verizon wants to charge pennies to perform a database lookup so the media companies can file lawsuits for big bucks.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)
Did an court say it was infringement? or just an c (Score:2)
Did an court say it was infringement? or just an clam with no evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
Did an court say it was infringement? or just an clam with no evidence?
The story is that they've filed a case at the court.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so there's no actual court convictions. Any evidence of actual copyright infringement must be in the evidence itself, then. Which implies the court is being asked to try the cases in addition to the claim that Verison enabled it.
Frankly, Verison irritate me no end and I wouldn't shed a tear if they were sued into bankruptcy, and they're guilty of underhand tactics themselves, but I'm unsure if this is the best way.
Re: (Score:2)
some one sue UPS and fedex for shipping stolen (Score:3, Interesting)
some one sue UPS and fedex for shipping stolen things or shipping stuff was payed for with stolen cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell the record labels to go to hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
After Cox lost their case, https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com] , you would think Verizon would take notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Judge jury and executioner (Score:5, Insightful)
Private companies should not be in the business of judging its subscribers and meting out punishment in response to alleged wrongdoing.
These cases should be adjudicated in a court of law and legal system should decide guilt and punishment not corporations.
Contract (Score:2)
You have entered willingly into a contract with a business. They have done the same with you. You can cancel that contract at any time for any reason. So can the company.
If you think companies are too large and powerful, change the tax code, which is where corporations are created, literally.
*middle fingers* (Score:2)
None of the record labels matter, nor do they have a case. It's not the ISP's job to police its customers. It's not the ISP's job to pass along your shit-stained notes. These infringement notices probably went straight into a shredder where they belong without getting looked at. Either sue the individuals or eat your own shit and do nothing. And if they can't figure out how to sue the individual without the ISP's cooperation then that's their own problem - try not being a piece of shit record label.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Verizon said here's where you go to pirate all you want, it doesn't matter, and your comparison doesn't work. An organizer of a shoplifting ring is still actively helping the shoplifters even if not doing it themselves. Blaming Verizon for not doing anything is like blaming the power company for selling me the electricity to do the pirating. RICO laws don't apply here either, because Verizon isn't actually a part of any organized criminal activity - or at least not a part of this organized criminal a
Re: (Score:2)
Do they know what year it is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Spotify premium is $12/mo. Whatever portion of that gets passed on to the record labels is what they're actually missing out on when someone sails the high seas for their music rather than going legit. Unless you're a broke kid with a lot of free time, it's almost not even worth the effort to pirate music these days. I'd say it's a safe bet that the money the recording industry thinks they're missing out on is entirely a work of some executives' overactive imaginations, since even if the ISPs completely stamped out P2P piracy, there's still the old standby of just ripping audio from YouTube.
Last I checked, Taylor Swift was a billionaire, and she made her name entirely in an era where it was possible to easily pirate her music through the internet. Seems like if you're a popular musician, the people who can afford to pay for your music absolutely will do so. I'm surprised the recording industry still hasn't caught on to this fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Taylor Swift makes her money from live performances, and the record company doesn't see any of that.
That of course is how musicians made money before records were invented.
Re: Do they know what year it is? (Score:2)
Executives will always try to find a good enough excuse why they can't bring in expected new profits. Their go-to has always been piracy. Like you said, their sales expectations are a figment of their imagination, a unicorn-grade underground market they can put their hands on that doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISP need immunity as carriors (Score:2)
This is what section 230 should apply to. Except they should be prohibited from intentionally monitoring any activity even if it is illegal. Any monitoring of any communication should require a warrant. And all warrants should become PUBLIC not later than six months later. Any monitoring of any communication outside of a warrant should allow the party involved to sue the ISP and involve statutory and legal damages.
Tried this in Australia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't work out for them. https://www.iinet.net.au/about... [iinet.net.au]
The problem is the court in the US has pretty much been completely corrupted, I mean compared to a banana republic, not just to Australia of 15+ years ago.
TBF, I still consider the Australian courts to be one of the most fair and even handed in the world. Sure, not perfect but still pretty damned good.
Guilty by association (Score:2)
No, Verizon did not earn money because a customer used BitTorrent-ing software. Hollywood is once-again demanding everyone is guilty by association and the courts owe it a revenue stream.
Unfortunately, the US courts decided Cox Communications did have to 'protect' Hollywood's profits, so Verizon will need better lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be great to hear from an ISP about all the money that "high usage" connection abusers are costing them? They'd have to admit that the $10/100GB they charge for overages cost them in the neighborhood of $0.50 every month!
What is Verizon to do? (Score:2)
If they start blocking bittorrent ports, people will just use alternative ports.
If they start blocking the bittorrent protocol, people will start using VPNs and proxies.
If they start blocking VPNs and proxies, people will start using tor.
and so on...
The bittorrent protocol is used by various projects and organizations for legitimate stuff, if Verizon starts blocking that protocol, there will be people who will become very unhappy.
Instead, the music industry should sue Verizon on every single abuse case indi
Tie it to Net Neutrality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell the ISPs they have two choices - be a Net Neutrality protected provider - you follow net neutrality and you are protected as a common carrier from what people do using your connection, or, you choose to give preferential treatment to traffic and lose those protections.
so does that mean when those labels (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fair point but... people still won't buy the song. They'll just listen to it on YouTube. And, if they want to keep a copy and all else fails, then they can record their speaker output with a microphone. That's how we used to "pirate" the top 40 when we were kids.
Of course (Score:2)
RIAA == RICO (Score:3)
If there was no piracy would they lower their prices, NO.
In other news (Score:2)
In other news, the US Government sued itself for building roads for that criminals use.
The Government's complaint accuses itself of being one of the largest Road Providers in the country, one that "knowingly provides its road service to a massive community of speeders and criminals."
Better Title: RIAA endorses bittorrent! (Score:2)
"""
Utilizing a BitTorrent client - essentially a tool that manages the uploading and downloading of files through BitTorrent technology - persons connected to the Internet can locate, access, and download copyrighted content from other peers in the blink of an eye. They download copyrighted music from other network users, usually total strangers, and end up with complete digital copies of any music they desire
"""
-- RIAA
at https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-24-cv-05285-UMG-v-Verizon-complaint-
Use VPN when torrenting (Score:2)
Even if it seems like there is already an obstacle that is protecting you from legal issues, you cant count on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just be sure that your VPN provider lies outside the reach of the recording industry cartels, or "accidentally" give them billing information which can't be connected to you. Even then you have to hope that their claims about not logging users real IP's are true.
Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Maybe BS lawsuits like this will push the ISPs to allow themselves to be classified as Common Carriers?
I mean, imagine the labels suing AT&T because people were talking about committing IP infringement, and not disconnecting them.
Oh crap, I just gave them an idea, didn't I?
Numbers (Score:2)
From the pdf complaint page 20:
* From March 2021 to at least August 2023, a Verizon subscriber with the IP
address 100.37.98.18 was identified in 4,450 infringement notices, sent on
at least 659 separate days.
â From August 2020 to at least December 2021, a Verizon subscriber with
the IP address 68.134.246.125 was identified in 2,703 infringement notices,
sent on at least 441 separate days.
â From March 2021 to at least August 2023, a Verizon subscriber with the IP
address 173.70.227.147 was identified i
All this shit is free on the radio. (Score:2)
Theft is best deterred by not allowing anyone access. One could argue this also applies to written or spoken language.
If they didn't distribute it then it couldn't be stolen. In fact the act of putting music on free radio then trying to sue should be treated as entrapment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint alleges that the mobile ISP profited because they charge higher fees to people who want usable amounts of throughput, and that if Verizon disconnected users from unconfirmed accusations they would lose subscribers to competitors.
It's a garbage argument IMO, but they did bring up the fact that Verizon may disconnect subscribers who don't pay their bills or abuse email systems. They apparently don't disconnect scummy megacorps for sending over 350,000 emails, but riaa didn't like that they occa