Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices
Customers of Verizon Communications who pirate music files may soon receive an unwelcome letter from the company.
Verizon, the second-largest phone company in the United States, is expected to begin issuing "copyright notices" on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America to those accused of illegally downloading songs from the Web, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement.
The sources, who asked for anonymity, said Verizon's letter campaign is part of a test, which is expected to begin on Thursday. Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman, confirmed the existence of the test but declined further comment.
The move is significant for the music industry because among Internet service providers, Verizon has typically been among the most reluctant to intervene in copyright cases on behalf of entertainment companies.
"We recognize the importance of copyright and the need to enforce those copyrights," a Verizon spokesman said in a statement to CNET. "Without that enforcement, intellectual property won't be generated at all. At the same time, it's important for our customers to be assured that they won't have their privacy rights trampled."
The letter the RIAA will send to Verizon, and will likely be forwarded to customers, is similar to those issued in the past by other ISPs, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Cox Communications. The RIAA's letter has typically notified customers that they have been accused of illegally sharing songs and informed them that such activity is illegal.
In the letter, the user is advised to delete the content they distribute. It's important to note that not included in the letter are threats of service termination or interruptions, or any talk of a "graduated response." That's the term the RIAA uses to describe a deterrent program whereby an ISP gradually ratchets up penalties or warnings to suspected file sharers.
Last December, the RIAA announced that it would no longer seek to file new lawsuits against individuals accused of illegal file sharing. Instead, the trade group representing the four largest music labels would try to convince ISPs to adopt a graduated-response program. While some companies, such as Cox, have said they will terminate service for chronic copyright violators, most ISPs have shied away from suggesting service termination.
More importantly, in the 11 months since the RIAA dropped the filing of lawsuits on a widespread basis, not a single ISP has acknowledged a formal agreement with the RIAA.
As for Verizon, it appears that the company is expanding the antipiracy relationships it has with the entertainment sector. In past years, as many of its competitors began to lock arms with entertainment companies, Verizon appeared to hold back. Verizon fought the RIAA when the group went to court to force the ISP to turn over the name of an alleged copyright violator.
Verizon also opposed antipiracy legislation important to the film and music sectors.
Verizon's attitude toward antipiracy seemed to change in 2005, when the company quietly agreed to forward notices to suspected illegal file sharers on behalf of Disney. In exchange, Verizon received the rights to transmit 12 of Disney's TV channels over its broadband network.
Several other ISPs have recently begun forwarding copyright notices on behalf of the film studios, according to the sources who spoke to CNET. It's not yet clear which other ISPs are involved.
They are in a 'lose-lose' situation here with this agreement with Disney and having to 'rat' on their customers, even just by sending these letters to them, which personally if I got one I would just ignore.
What's wrong here is that you are ignorant of your own history. Natural law and your very existence depends on copying and replicating data- no matter who thinks they own it. In this case, it could be songs people once sung for free. It starts with something this stupid to get in the door with people like you. With all due respect, of course.
What are you talking about??? You think you're sounding so clever but you're talking a load of drivel. What has anyting you've said got to do with the notion of musicians/writers who produce a saleable product (records/books) that can be pirated or distributed in means other than the ones legally defined by law? All you guff about DNA is so beside the point and shows you haven't got a clue about what is being talked about here.
Finally, you, too, display a certain ignorance of copyright law. It was originally intended to give the content creator a license to make money off it for a limited time before it moved into the public domain. In order to encourage the content creator to continue to create, the time was to be very limited--if he wanted to earn more, he had to create more. But, big business' interpretation of copyright is to own it as long as the item can earn money. They have bought congress into passing laws that support this perverted concept. This is not as the founding fathers thought when they wrote copyright law into the Constitution.
--mark d.
Speaking of "stealing" in order to create copyrighted content copyright law had to steal what used to be fair use and public domain.
That said, copyright infringment is just that. It's not stealing as much as you would like it to be. Laws against theft existed long before copyright was even a concept.
@mwschin
I don't approve of accusations alone determining guilt. There is no trial here, no finding of guilt by a jury or judget. Just more potential for abuse like the DMCA abuses that already go on.
Speaking of "stealing" in order to create copyrighted content copyright law had to steal what used to be fair use and public domain.
That said, copyright infringment is just that. It's not stealing as much as you would like it to be. Laws against theft existed long before copyright was even a concept.
@mwschin
I don't approve of accusations alone determining guilt. There is no trial here, no finding of guilt by a jury or judget. Just more potential for abuse like the DMCA abuses that already go on.
@PixP
Somewhere a laywer went through their normal day and made a note of when their normal (and thus fair use) would be considered infringment. They racked up quite a list. I wish I had the link.
@4wight
He's not far off the mark. How can a photographer own a copyright of my image? Yet they do. A person can lose the rights to their own DNA because a medal resercher copyrighted it (or patented it not sure whihc in this case). What do you get when a make up artist, a wardrobe professional, a choriographer and a producer conspire to make an dance artist better than what they would have been on a dance they invented? Then snap a photo. Who owns what? It can be a mess. Oh, and some of us do have IP that we never get paid for even thought millions of people use it.
My ISP(Qwest- dsl) has a solid record for standing up for the bill of rights and I get faster speeds(and is consistently the same 24/7) than crap companies like Comcast have to offer.
As for Verizon, the only thing they have to lose are customers so I guess that makes sense. ?????????
Do RIAA lawyers write and enforce the law now?
Nice.
If the RIAA isn't stopped soon we will see ISP close to not get sued or to give up people info and all that e ill have it the big companies and you won't be able to download anything but from sites you pay thought the nose from.
Freedom isn't free it won with the act of those willing to fight to the end.
GDR
Don't they need to be charged before being labelled guilty?
So you believe the record studios blindly?
Weak rationalization. of theft. Very weak. As I stated elsewhere, you can play semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, we're still talking about the unlawful self-appropriations of goods or services. Rather than walking into a store and stuffing a cd into one's coat, it's just being done digitally.
"Except, of course, there's a huge difference there. If someone steals a DVD it's no longer there for someone else to buy. If someone who never would have purchased the movie views it online there's no loss." -- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091103/0434486780.shtml
Since before it was considered content to be stolen. There was a world without copyright. Then copyright stole what used to be normal freedom and created a new crime of infringment to punish what before was ok. Of course I'm using stolen in the sence you are. Infringment is the right word.
Since before it was considered content to be stolen. There was a world without copyright. Then copyright stole what used to be normal freedom and created a new crime of infringment to punish what before was ok. Of course I'm using stolen in the sence you are. Infringment is the right word.
@najaboy
The right word for the job is the right word to use. That's infringment. There is no theft. By way of example. Joe Pirate copies 1 CD and sell it on the black market. That's infringment. Joe Wedding Dude makes a mix CD for use at his wedding by copying some songs from his collection. That's fair use. Both made copies. Neither one stole, but one infringed and one didn't.
Now if Joe Pirate and Joe Wedding Dude both stole their CD from the CD Warehouse, that's theft. Infringment and theft have different rules that apply to them.
Now if you want to play word games, that's your choice but the rest of us are in the real world slogging this stuff out.
You RIAA shills need new talking points.
If the RIAA isn't stopped soon we will see ISP close to not get sued or to give up people info and all that e ill have it the big companies and you won't be able to download anything but from sites you pay thought the nose from.
Freedom isn't free it won with the act of those willing to fight to the end.
GDR
If the RIAA has no permission to view, sniff, or otherwise use your content (by their own rules) without paying for it they are in violation of the copyright laws as they see them and therfore to even issue a letter is an acknoldgment of their guilt in infringing copyright.
Just for the record the RIAA is hereby NOT allowed to look at my data streams (a deravative work) and especailly my IP contained therein without paying me for the use.
Sounds like spam. I guess I'll have to do the same thing I do with spam: move it to the garbage can without opening it.
I'm am going to call ******** on the above. The only reason that Verizon is getting involved is that the possible RIAA infringers are the same people that are using the most bandwidth. Make no mistake it's all about network bandwidth.
When did congress make Verizon part of the court system or a law enforcement organization.
"Without that enforcement, intellectual property won't be generated at all."
Given the number of people creating works eligible for some form of IP protection, not all of them driven by profit, I highly doubt all IP creation would cease. That said I wouldn't mind if the big 4 record labels stopped if only to be spared the garbage that makes top 40 and gets played every where, as if repetition will magically transform it from crap to something approaching music, but I digress.
the ira is relentless. excuse the error. i meant the riaa.
Also, as someone else had mentioned, bandwidth will become an issue down the road, as they gain more users.
Maybe Google will be different than the rest. Yup, monitor all our information, but won't hold back AND won't infringe on our privacy. Just monitor our usage and provide general information to those who will pay for it.
I'll be glad to download the work you created and then of course burn it and even sell it.
I'll be glad to download the work you created and then of course burn it and even sell it. "
I quoted you without your permission. Did I steal. According to you. Yes. According to how forums and such work. No it's fair use. At worst I infringed on your IP (which you signed away with the terms of service on this site) at best, and the accurate thing here, it's fair use.
Neither was actually stealing amazingly your orginal words are right were you left them. It would really help if you understood the concept of copyright and theft before you split hairs on the naunces.
I don't like this big brother B.S. and I am PAYING for a service (ISP) to connect me to the Internet -- NOT MONITOR WHAT I DO. Stay out of my face or I will go somewhere else.
- by mmntech November 13, 2009 6:31 AM PST
- Well at least they're sending cease and desist letters now. It does bring up a lot of privacy issues though. Piracy has proven impossible to stop, though it's hardly bringing the industry down to its knees. The biggest mistake RIAA made was not making a legal way to download music when the first MP3 players came out. In fact I seem to remember them suing the manufacturers of the first MP3 players to try and stop them. The writing was one the wall even before the iPod came out. They missed a major business opportunity, instead choosing rampant litigation. MP3 players exploded in popularity, Napster beat them to the punch, and the rest is history.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Renegade Knight November 13, 2009 9:37 AM PST
- Excellent comment. Some of us in the trenches aren't ignoring the RIAA's abuses. Alas they have the power and we only have numbers...
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (90 Comments)The lawsuits are only serving to clog courts and harass individuals. Filesharing may be illegal but so are a lot of the industry's tactics. Invasion of privacy, extortion, unreasonable fines... It's not as if they've never stolen IPs either. Two wrongs don't make a right. The problem is that they've become so powerful (arguably one of the most powerful corporate bodies in the US), that this often gets ignored.
All the industry can do realistically is absorb the cost of piracy and work on their marketing and PR. Take the high road for once. Start fostering genuine talent (not over-processed covers of 70s pop songs! ... but I digress), and embrace the internet instead of fighting it every step of the way.