WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court ruled
Friday the recording industry can’t force Internet providers to identify
subscribers swapping music online, dramatically setting back the industry’s
anti-piracy campaign.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia overturned a trial judge’s ruling that enforced a type of copyright
subpoena under a law that predated the music-swapping trend.
“It’s an incredible ruling, a blow for the little guy,” said Bob Barnes,
a grandfather in Fresno, Calif., who was targeted by one of the earliest
subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America (news – web
sites) but isn’t among the hundreds who have been sued so far.
The ruling does not make it legal to distribute music over the Internet,
but it removes one of the most effective tools used by the recording industry
to track such activity and sue downloaders.
The appeals court said the 1998 copyright law doesn’t cover the popular
file-sharing networks currently used by tens of millions of Americans to
download songs. The law “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 “stakes are large.” But the judges said it was not the role of courts
to rewrite the 1998 law, “no matter how damaging that development has been
to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software
industries.”
Legal experts said the appeals ruling probably would not affect the 382
civil lawsuits the recording industry already has filed since it announced
its campaign nearly six months ago.
But it will make identifying defendants for future lawsuits much more
difficult and expensive.
The ruling forces the recording industry to file copyright lawsuits against
“John Doe” defendants, based on their Internet addresses, then work through
the courts to learn their names.
Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling
“unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before
we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside
of litigation.”
Sherman promised to “continue to defend our rights online on behalf of
artists, songwriters and countless others involved in bringing music to
the public.”
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 under subpoena by the music industry.
Verizon’s lawyer, Sarah Deutsch, called the ruling “an important victory
for all Internet users and all consumers.” She said the music industry should
be required to file traditional civil lawsuits — which are more expensive
and time-consuming — to prosecute downloaders.
“Consumers’ rights cannot be trampled upon in the quest to enforce your
copyright,” Deutsch said.
The appeals court said one argument by the recording industry “borders
upon the silly” — the trade group’s claim that Verizon was responsible for
downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news – web sites), passed years
before downloading music over peer-to-peer Internet services became popular,
compels Internet providers to turn over the names of people suspected of
operating pirate Web sites 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.”
Related Posts
- Supreme Court Decides Not to Listen to the RIAA
- Court Rejects RIAA Request to Identify Song Swappers
- Canadian court deals setback to record labels
- Record industry sues 493 more U.S. music swappers
- RIAA Plans New Lawsuits Soon
Loading ...
