|
US Court: RIAA Can't Have Names of Downloaders
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
For general discussion. :D
Finally, judges that know what they're talking about. 'It is not the responsibility of the court to rewrite the law.'
| quote: |
Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers
Dec. 19, 2003
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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." |
|
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| thanks for posting this, i would have not known otherwise :) |
|
|
| butterfly |
| nice. prolly only a short term victory but a good one. |
|
|
| whiskers |
i read this over twice... and i still don't get what they're trying to say.
does that mean i won't get canned by verizon if i download music? |
|
|
| imokruok |
Internet service providers, for the most part, have been active defenders of their customers. A lot of people miss that distinction, and think their ISPs are in bed with the RIAA.
So companies like Verizon have been actively fighting the RIAA's attempts to get the names of ISP subscribers. The ISPs know that one of the reasons people subscribe to their service is to share files.
The court handed Verizon (and other ISPs) a victory here. The RIAA can no longer force an ISP to reveal who its customers are. |
|
|
| Muttur |
About f*ckin time if you ask me. Why the RIAA doesn't look for other ways to battle piracy, (i.e. lowering prices of expensive-ass CDs) is beyond me...
Greedy bastards. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Internet service providers, for the most part, have been active defenders of their customers. A lot of people miss that distinction, and think their ISPs are in bed with the RIAA.
So companies like Verizon have been actively fighting the RIAA's attempts to get the names of ISP subscribers. The ISPs know that one of the reasons people subscribe to their service is to share files.
The court handed Verizon (and other ISPs) a victory here. The RIAA can no longer force an ISP to reveal who its customers are. |
BULL! My ISP (Comcast) is the ISP giving the RIAA most of its fuel :whip: |
|
|
| Muttur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
BULL! My ISP (Comcast) is the ISP giving the RIAA most of its fuel :whip: |
They are??!!!! I have comcast too!!! I guess i should be a little more careful with my 1.7 TB library, huh...
*starts hiding 200+ data cds under bed...* |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by Muttur
They are??!!!! I have comcast too!!! I guess i should be a little more careful with my 1.7 TB library, huh...
*starts hiding 200+ data cds under bed...* |
And I thought I had a lot :P |
|
|
| Muttur |
you probably do, considering half of my 1.7 are PvD livesets.
*cough* stalker *cough* |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Muttur
They are??!!!! I have comcast too!!! I guess i should be a little more careful with my 1.7 TB library, huh...
*starts hiding 200+ data cds under bed...* |
quick...you have to hide this...give it to me to hold...hehehehe |
|
|
| DJ Rat 187 |
Ok this is something that I heard (probably not true) from my brother who heard it in government class and he says that : the RIAA have no right to do what they are supposedly doing and that the have not busted anyone and the televised discussions and reports are all just a media trick to scare the public into cutting down on file sharing.
Also that Kazaa is not getting sued because it is a German based company and makes legitimate money off of promotions and etc.
:crazy: :eyespop: :eyes: |
|
|
|
|
