RIAA takes a blow from federal appeals court...

Kaak · December 19, 2003, 14:58

Quote:

Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers

Email this Story

Dec 19, 10:44 AM (ET)

By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by the recording industry to compel the nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers accused of illegally distributing music online.

In a substantial setback for the industry's controversial anti-piracy campaign, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a ruling by the trial judge to enforce a copyright subpoena.

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.

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.

Verizon had challenged the constitutionality of the subpoenas under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

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.

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.

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."

Link

MarkG · December 19, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

"borders upon the silly"

notyoueither · December 19, 2003, 17:17

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of.

There are people breaking the law, and a certain group or organisation can identify them, but the courts won't uphold the ability of the aggrieved party to compel the organisation to pass on the identity?

That's just freakin' amazing.

vlad · December 19, 2003, 18:24

Kinda like priests, lawyers,and doctors keeping things secret, man oh man what next

Good for the courts, for once protecting us and giving the average man some privacy. If what people are doing is so illegal then someone must have hard evidence against them, since they don't actually know who they are, I guess there is no way to prove it's really them anyway

So what is really costing more money now, the illegal file swappers or the RIAA legal staff?

Ned · December 19, 2003, 21:43

Music pirates also won in Holland.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D7VHK53O0.html

KrazyHorse · December 19, 2003, 21:46

Yay!

Intellectual property is bunk.

Ned · December 19, 2003, 21:48

vlad, the courts are on the side of due process in that one simply cannot ask about another's private information without going through a court.

The only exception to this where the law wants to sieze the medical records of well known right-wing talk show hosts who have publicly admitted to drug addition. There the lurid interests of the public to scandal outweigh constitutional rights of the right-wingers.