Verizon Beats Back E-Book Settlement Troll Refuses to Hand Over User Data After Subpoena Most large ISPs are more than happy to hand over your private information to any BitTorrent copyright troll who asks, their only concern usually being that they're compensated for the labor costs involved in not giving a damn about their customers privacy, rights or potential innocence. Interestingly however, Verizon recently decided to fight book publisher John Wiley & Sons who was engaged in "copyright-o-matic" settlement shake downs, complaining that the publisher's request for BitTorrent user subpoenas was about harassing and shaking down customers. Verizon's legal defense has worked: As expected, Wiley didn’t agree with the objections outlined above and asked the court to compel Verizon to comply with the subpoena. However, after a conference call between Wiley’s lawyer and the judge, this request was dropped. And that was not all. A recent letter to the court also reveals that Wiley has withdrawn the subpoenas it sent to Verizon. “Given the telephone conference with Your Honor on May 14, 2012, we withdraw our subpoenas to Verizon as well as our motion to compel Verizon to respond to those subpoenas," the letter reads. Granted the subpoenas were for ten users, and Verizon's not in the e-book business. When it came to a business that Verizon is involved in (TV, films) Verizon was more than happy to hand over requested user data from the U.S. Copyright Group, which was engaged in the exact same kind of shake down -- except with more polish and on a larger scale.
|
  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | And you are suprised? Verizon has clearly demonstrated SELF INTEREST COMES FIRST for many years. | |
|  |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: And you are suprised? said by tshirt: Verizon has clearly demonstrated SELF INTEREST COMES FIRST for many years.
And which corporation doesn't operate exactly the same way? | |
| | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: And you are suprised? Corp's can be individuals, non-profits, not for profits, and mega- corps.
some do thinks not always in their own interest on purpose, and some do so by accident/stupidity.
Verizon seems to have a dept. of NEVER! | |
| | | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: And you are suprised? said by tshirt:some do thinks not always in their own interest on purpose, and some do so by accident/stupidity. By definition their interests is what their actions are. It may not be in their best interest for the sustained existence or maximum profitability (or the non-/not-for-profit equivalent) of the corporation, but it's still their self interest. Any corporation that doesn't put it's self interest first is opening itself up to potential shareholder lawsuits. | |
|
|  PathfinderDazed ConfusedPremium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by tshirt: Verizon has clearly demonstrated SELF INTEREST COMES FIRST for many years.
And what individual doesn't? | |
| | | | | Re: And you are suprised? lot's of individuals don't. You know not penises?
However it wud be foolish for a company | |
|
| | Devil's Advocate I am going to play devil's advocate here (not that I love VZ). Is it possible that part of their re-transmission agreements for TV stipulate that they have to honor subpoenas for user data? It seems their self-interest is really more of their TV partners self interest (ie they don't stand to gain from any judgements levied by a third party). | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Boost Mobile
·Verizon FiOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: Devil's Advocate said by Devils Advo :I am going to play devil's advocate here (not that I love VZ). Is it possible that part of their re-transmission agreements for TV stipulate that they have to honor subpoenas for user data? It seems their self-interest is really more of their TV partners self interest (ie they don't stand to gain from any judgements levied by a third party).
They stand to gain by keeping subscribers to the TV service they offer. | |
| | | | | Re: Devil's Advocate Why would anyone advocate for the Devil?
I don't understand... | |
| | | |  birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:8 | Re: Devil's Advocate said by XANAVirus:Why would anyone advocate for the Devil?
I don't understand...
In order to understand both sides of the argument.
Angel: Don't do that. You'll go to hell.
Devil: Hey, you only live once, sort of. And it's not *that* bad.
Devil's Advocate: And, you'll have fun. Go ahead, it's only once.
Applying that to this topic, you get...
Wiley: Send us your customer data. We want to sue them cause they stole our product.
VZ: It's a copyright violation, and how do you know it was really our customers.
quote:
VZ Angel: Go ahead, we're abiding by the law.
VZ Devil: Since when did law have anything to do with it? It's only books, not movies or music.
Devil's Advocate: Risk customers to jump ship over 10 P2P copyright violations?
VZ to Wiley: Pound sand. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Devil's Advocate Thank you for explaining that to me!
I understand clearly.  | |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | judges are starting to refuse "copyright-o-matic"settl a few have ruled that an IP address is not a person, so therefore there is no one to name, so the request is improper. and they ruled naming the account holder as responsible is dubious at best!. because IP adresses are not 100% reliable, and anyone could have accessed that computer, in the house, or by WiFi in some cases. | |
|
| |
|
|
