Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers.(YES)

PC-GUY · Dec 20, 2003

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]Dec 19, 11:13 AM (ET)

By TED BRIDIS [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by the recording industry to compel the nation's Internet providers to turn over names of subscribers suspected of illegally swapping music online. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]The ruling from a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a dramatic setback for the industry's controversial anti-piracy campaign. It overturned the trial judge's decision to enforce a type of copyright subpoena from a law that predates the music downloading trend. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]The appeals court said the 1998 law doesn't cover the popular file-sharing networks currently used by tens of millions of Americans to download songs. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]The Digital Millennium Copyright Act "betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works," the court wrote. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry, noting that "stakes are large." But the judges said it was not the role of courts to rewrite the 1998 copyright law, "no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries." [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]The appeals ruling throws into question at least 382 civil lawsuits the recording industry filed since it announced its legal campaign nearly six months ago. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]U.S. District Judge John D. Bates had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers. Since then, Verizon has identified dozens of its other subscribers to music industry lawyers. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]The law, passed years before downloading music over peer-to-peer Internet services became popular, compels Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office. A judge's signature is not required. Critics contend judges ought to be more directly involved. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer. [/font]

[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
 <script> var globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj = new Object; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrBg = '#FFFFFF'; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrBdr = '#CBCBCD'; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrTtlBg = '#3366CC'; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrTtlTxt = '#FFFFFF'; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrTtlUl = '#88B2FF'; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrLine1 = '#0033CC'; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrLine2 = '#000000'; globHtmlWriteSponLinksObj.clrLine3 = '#008000'; var fiSponLinksDivHgt=202; document.write('
'); </script> <script> moreHeadlines(); </script> <script language="JavaScript">  </script> [/font]

<table cellspacing="6" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0" _base_href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHI7400.html"> <tbody _base_href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHI7400.html"><tr _base_href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHI7400.html"><td _base_href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHI7400.html"></td></tr></tbody> </table>

Blane · Dec 21, 2003

Great news.

banzibaby · Dec 21, 2003

Awww what a shame 4 those poor record companies.....NOT!!!

At last, some judges that dont just bend over 4 them

BaNzI

VIPER_1069 · Dec 21, 2003

more news ...........................

The subpoenas filed by the RIAA in its attempt to stop illegal P2P file swappers have been rendered illegal. Verizon Communications won its court case against the RIAA. The Courts have found that the subpoena provisions in the DMCA do not apply to private communications on a person's computer or to the applications used for file swapping. Based on what I've read, this isn't necessarily a good thing. According the Information I've learned, the point of getting the persons name was to try to settle the matter out of court. Until this decision is appealed it appears the RIAA will be filing lawsuits against individuals it deems as being those involved in illegal file sharing without first giving them that warning. Once the lawsuit is filed, identification of the defendant will be brought after legal proceedings are already underway, instead of before.

news taken from news groups etc

gettygas · Dec 21, 2003

poor poor RIAA

saturday, December 20, 2003

By JAMES ROWLEY
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Internet providers do not have to identify customers who share pirated music on the Web, a U.S. appeals court said Friday in a major ruling that thwarts a recording industry legal strategy to fight piracy.

The three-judge panel in Washington held that a 1998 copyright law doesn't authorize companies such as Sony Corp.'s music unit to force Verizon, the largest provider of high-speed Internet access over telephone lines, to name subscribers who might be storing pirated songs on their home computers.

The court said it sympathized with the recording industry's "concern regarding widespread infringement" of music copyrights. Still, it said, the courts cannot rewrite the law "to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry."

Privacy advocates hailed the decision as a victory that will force the Recording Industry Association of America Inc. (RIAA) to drop a legal tactic used to find music pirates and file lawsuits against individuals who swap copyrighted music between their computers over peer-to-peer Internet networks.

"This decision will prevent ... the music industry from conducting fishing expeditions through the records of service providers," said David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based advocacy group.

The decision will force the Washington-based recording industry trade group or its members to file lawsuits against people, rather than getting subpoenas without any showing of wrongdoing.

RIAA president Cary Sherman said the decision means the trade group won't be able to notify file swappers before it files lawsuits to give them an opportunity to settle. "We can and will continue to file copyright infringement lawsuits against file sharers who engage in illegal activity," Sherman said.

Verizon associate general counsel Sarah Deutsch dismissed the recording industry's concerns about advance notice as "completely false," saying "They've sought from the beginning to trample on consumer privacy rights." Before the group began giving notice, "they ended up suing a 12-year-old girl," she said.

On Dec. 3, New Jersey attorney Karen A. Confoy filed a half-dozen suits in U.S. District Court in Newark on behalf of recording companies, among them Warner Brothers, Sony Music Entertainment, Virgin Record America, and Capitol Records.

The suits echo those filed elsewhere in the country. Alleging copyright violations, the suits list songs that the defendants allegedly downloaded from the Internet. The suits seek a halt to the downloading and monetary damages.

In a separate case, Princeton University student Daniel Peng in May agreed to pay the RIAA $15,000 to settle accusations that he and three students from other colleges made thousands of songs available online for downloading. The students, all of whom settled, did not admit wrongdoing.

The industry group probably has data on people it hasn't sued yet and will "ramp up" its litigation "to make a point that this didn't stop them," said Josh Bernoff, analyst at Forrester Research Inc. in Boston. The industry will likely get names of file-sharers from universities and companies concerned about liability or rights of copyright holders, he said.

"There will be plenty of people left to sue, but until this ruling is changed, many consumers will be harder to track down," he said.

SBC Communications Inc., whose Pacific Bell Internet Services unit sued the recording industry group after receiving as many as 871 subpoenas, hailed the decision. The company said it will continue fighting the subpoenas "wherever they may be presented to us in order to protect the privacy rights of our customers."

The court agreed with Verizon that the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act only empowers copyright holders to force Internet services that distribute or store pirated music on the Web to disclose subscribers' names. The panel found that Verizon was not covered by the law because it is a conduit and not a repository for the pirated material.

When Congress drafted the law, the record of debates "betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works" because peer-to-peer software had not been invented, the court said. The peer-to-peer - or P2P - software enables computer users to swap data stored on personal computers through an Internet protocol address.

The judges said that congressional committees are now "considering how best to deal with the threat to copyrights posted by P2P file-sharing schemes."

The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the recording industry's argument that the law's definition of an Internet service included those that merely enabled customers to transmit pirated material. "This argument borders on the silly," Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote.

Movie studios and video-game makers are likely to join a lobbying effort to get Congress to change the law, said Adi Kishore, media and entertainment analyst with the Yankee Group in Boston.

"All content owners are concerned about this," Kishore said.

Staff Writer Hugh R. Morley contributed to this article

PC-GUY · Dec 21, 2003

I feel so bad for them!!!! NOT.

I don't know if you know it but the RIAA wants to have the law change to give jail time if they find you guilty. I don't remembers where I read that but isn't that nice. Still millions from S&L and get a slap on the hand but download a file and go to jail. That makes sense to me.

NOT!!!

VIPER_1069 · Dec 22, 2003

The sucky part of this mess is ..... ALL those unfortunate people who have settled their subpoenas will unfortunatly NOT get any money back and the RIAA get to spend their extra beer money just in time for XMAS

gettygas · Dec 22, 2003

Found this over at cdfreaks found it to be funny

h..p://w.w.whatacrappypresent.com/

Sorry RIAA

PC-GUY · Dec 22, 2003

gettygas said:
Found this over at cdfreaks found it to be funny

h..p://w.w.whatacrappypresent.com/

Sorry RIAA

Cool link thanks. I didn't know about downhillbattle.com and I love the sticker.

Last I heard sales where off, I hope the label helps and I hope there still off.

Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers.(YES)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Attachments