RIAA Blindsided By Court Decision

[que-em]

Finally the court wakes up from it's DEEP slumber. Next they need to examine the DMCA & Patriot Act

[phalkon30]

In the future, please do not submit news more than once. If your story is rejected, we most likely won't post it the second, third, fourth, and so on times.

The news mods are mainly students, so things will be posted later in the day if submitted earlier in the day. When I got home there were 42 stories waiting to be put on the homepage of ZP. Most of them were repeats of this story, and a lot of the stories were by the same person...submitted over and over and over. All that does is waste our time, and make the news process slower.

[Kooperman]

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."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHHPHO0.html

[tons of fun]

Fan-freakin' tastic news!!!!!!!! :shoot :gj :fire :tilted

[Kooperman]

From CNET:

Court: Net music subpoenas not authorized
Last modified: December 19, 2003, 7:59 AM PST
By Reuters


In a surprise setback for the recording industry, a U.S. appeals court said Friday that the industry's methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law.

The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, has sought to force Verizon Communications and other Internet service providers to reveal the names of customers it suspects may be copying music without permission.

The recording industry says the widespread copying of music over the Internet is partially to blame for falling CD sales.

Verizon has argued that existing copyright law does not give the recording industry such authority and that its customers' privacy was being violated.

A lower court earlier this year upheld the recording industry's tactics, which have served as the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed against individual Internet users.

But in a strongly worded ruling, the appeals court sided with Verizon, saying a 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit.

"In sum, we agree with Verizon that (the law) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote.

Neither Verizon nor the RIAA was immediately available for comment

[origin]

Finally we are getting a little leverage here, lets see where this goes in the longer run(for the best I hope).Only if the RIAA took the live by example methodology,sueing people who don't have the money anyways is quite worthless comparing to the price of everything else in a trial. joyous news!! for :) :;)

l8

[crackerjacker]

hmm interesting if you ask me. btw wanna check out the ruling.
download it from here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...izon121903.pdf

[multi]

thanks for the link cj !
:)

[Malicious Intent]

That is fantastic. It is difficult to not get over excited about this news. No ISP is going to hand private details to the RIAA now. I don't know what the American equivilent to the Data Protection Act is, but it would surely be breaking it? That and I doubt ISPs will be too happy for how the RIAA treated them after the last court case.
No personel details surely means the end to so many lawsuits? The RIAA will need actual evidence now and a judges signature and stuff.
Please say this is as good as it sounds!

[cjules13]

So now the RIAA can't go directly to the ISPs to demand the information of identities to IPs. Now they must file a formal lawsuit first, in order to obtain the info.

This will prove to be a tremendous burden in order to obtain one IP.

I can see the stakes actaully rising a little here. Consider this: If the RIAA wants to get your identity, now they must go through a lot more effort to get your ID. So that makes me think if they want to continue this lawsuit campaign, they're going to be suing for LOT more. Maybe gone are the days of $3000 settments, maybe they'll be seeking $30000 average to compensate for all their extra efforts and cost sassociated with filed a formal lawsuit before obtaining the information.

BUT, seriously folks, the amount of proceeding needed to go this route I think will prove to be way too burndesome, and the names will be coming out SO MUCH MORE SLOWLY than before.

Get those connections HOT homies, LET'S GO ON A FUCKIN RAMPAGE! :santa

[Wolfie]

Great news and early Christmas gift for p2p users in the US and bad news for Grinches at the RIAA.

[notbob]

Great news and early Christmas gift for p2p users in the US and bad news for Grinches at the RIAA.

do you think they'll have to pay back the "settlements" garnered in their now unlawful sceme?

i doubt it

this won't stop them, they'll probably just use FUD to extort money, not the law

[Pebbles100]

Thanks KM & CJ! This is a small sign of relief after hearing nothing but bad news so far.

[RJ5500]

This is great news! It deserves a few bouncing frogs. :fire :fire :fire

[Ken17625]

Merely a speed-bump.

They have too much money, and have bought too many politicians. The "situation" will be "rectified" soon.