edit: Sorry, didn't notice until now that this news was already mentioned in another RIAA-related thread (the mentioning of this case in that topic was slightly off-topic, though). Should I delete this one and bump the other one or keep this one up?

<h3>ISP Ordered To Reveal File-Swapper's Identity</h3>
In a ruling hailed by some as a major victory in the recording industry's epic battle against online piracy -- but decried by others as a threat to Web privacy -- a judge has ordered an Internet service provider to turn over the identity of a voracious file-swapper to an industry group.
U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates ruled that Verizon Internet Services must disclose the name of the individual, who used the Kazaa file-swapping service to download as many as 600 songs.
The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) had asked the judge to force Verizon to honor a subpoena it served on the ISP seeking the swapper's identity.

Friendly Reminder
The RIAA has not said whether it will pursue criminal charges or civil action against the individual once it obtains his or her identity.
"We look forward to contacting the account holder whose identity we were seeking so we can let them know that what they are doing is illegal," RIAA president Cary Sherman said.

Big Chill
But the group may not have to pursue a case in order to have the desired effect, according to some legal experts, who predict that the ruling, even if it is overturned on appeal, may have a chilling effect on file-swapping.
"I think file-swappers operated under two assumptions, one being that they couldn't be identified, the other that no one would ever pursue them for what they were doing," University of Pennsylvania marketing professor Peter S. Fader told the E-Commerce Times. "At least one of those illusions has been wiped out, and potentially both of them."
Whereas many casual file-swappers had ceased the practice after the demise of Napster (news - web sites), Kazaa and other alternatives have been gaining more attention lately, and another wave of public adoption seemed possible before the ruling, Fader said.

Vowing To Fight
Verizon spokesperson Susan Cavender Butta told the E-Commerce Times that Verizon plans to appeal the decision, citing the need to protect consumer privacy and a potential "chilling effect" on other Internet uses, including exchanges of private e-mail.
In his ruling against Verizon, the judge set aside the ISP's interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites) (DMCA), which the RIAA had sought to use to gain access to the user's identity.

DMCA Battle Lines
The DMCA, long a point of contention for online privacy (news - web sites) experts and copyright holders such as music and movie studios, has been the subject of several major court rulings in recent months.
In November, the first-ever criminal prosecution under the law ended with the acquittal of a Russian software firm accused of publishing code to enable free downloads of Adobe (Nasdaq: ADBE - news) eBooks (news - web sites). The movie industry also lost a battle when a court ruled it could not sue residents of other states in a case involving a Texas man who reportedly posted code for unlocking anti-copying software on DVDs.

Source: Yahoo News

[ 01-23-2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Want to keep up with Broadband news?...Look here: http://www.dslreports.com/

<font color="cyan">Not good for me.........</font>

Me neither... I'm scared now, I have 3 songs downloading on Kazaa Lite :D [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color="cyan">Lets just say I've got over 600. And aiming higher. :( </font>

Look on the bright side people!! The RIAA can sue you for whatever silly amount that they want. The only problem is that they cant get blood from a stone. If they sue me for my files I might lose, but since my bank account rarely gets out of the double digits , what will they win?? It will probably cost them more in legal fees than they will make off of whomever it is they are trying to sue. Even if the court orders the loser to pay the winners court costs ,you cant pay what you dont have. I say "WAY TO GO RIAA!!!" come and sue me!! I will even send you a list of my songs if you ask nice. [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img]

Get with it, you guys. Anonymous downloading from newsgroups has virtually ZERO risks.

Xnews

Usually faster than downloading from the leeches with dialup, as well.

Erm, it's not really your money they're after. I think they would much rather make an example out of you by placing you in endless debt than actually having you pay the required amount.

What they want is to make people afraid of using filesharing programs.

Here in the U.S. , Indemaijinj , we can declare "bankruptcy" to avoid huge debts. Basicaly you go to court and the courts erase your debt but then you cant get any credit for the next 7 years. With that in effect even if the RIAA wins 20 million from me , I can just go to another court the next day and have the debt stricken off my records. It will kill my credit, but the RIAA will have spent all that money on lawyers for nothing.

Strangely enough, I've been told bankruptcy protection is a necessary evil in a healthy economy. Unfortunately, it also contibutes to things like inflation. Which means that everyone pays for bankruptcy in the end. If financial institutions were allowed to put people in inescapable debt with no out, the consumer goods economy would probably slow to a crawl. Which is just as bad.