Slashdot Mirror
Charter Cable Sues To Quash RIAA Subpoenas
mattOzan writes "Charter Communications, the third largest cable provider in the United States, has filed a motion in St. Louis, Missouri, to block the RIAA's requests for the identities of about 150 Charter customers in the St. Louis area. In the over 1100 subpoenas that have been issued so far, Charter claims they are the only major ISP that has not provided the RIAA with 'a single datum of information.'"
Charter cable sues to block music inquiry
10/03/2003
Charter Communications Inc. filed a suit on Friday seeking to block the recording industry from obtaining the identities of Charter customers who allegedly shared copyrighted music over the Internet.
Charter filed papers in U.S. District Court in St. Louis in a bid to quash subpoenas that the Recording Industry Association of America issued seeking the identities of about 150 Charter customers.
"We are the only major cable company that has not as yet provided the RIAA a single datum of information," said Tom Hearity, vice president and associate general counsel for Charter, which is based in Town and Country.
The recording association has subpoenaed information as part of its effort to crack down on illegal distribution of copyrighted music. So far, the group has filed suits against 261 people, none of them in the St. Louis area.
Charter's move Friday suggested that Charter had undergone a change of heart on the issue. On Sept. 23, after the association issued its first subpoenas to Charter in St. Louis, a Charter spokesman said the company would "fully cooperate."
However, Hearity said that statement meant only that the company would "cooperate in the sense that we're going to operate within the legal process."
Representatives at the association's headquarters in Washington could not be reached.
Anyone can subpoena anyone else to get information to use in a lawsuit. The DMCA makes it easier to do so in the case of alleged copyright infringement, but the right to issue subpoenas is avaialble to any person or corporation.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
The party being subpoenaed (here Charter Communications) has the right to challenge the subpoena in court.
http://www.chartercom.com/aboutus/ourstory/ourstor y.asp
"Years ago, Charter Communications Chairman Paul Allen envisioned a Wired World - a global broadband network that would interconnect every home, facilitating the convergence of television, computers, the Internet and communications.
Today, Paul Allen is Charter's largest shareholder. And with interests in more than 100 other world-class enterprises and investments dedicated to improving the way people live, learn, do business, and experience the world, he and his portfolio companies are creating a Wired World."
the riaa claims to have lost millions of dollars. The yearend reports can be found here in pdf format:p
http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/yearend.as
note that the sale of cd's has dropped less than 10%, and that the sale of DVD video and DVD audio has risen far more. The riaa doesn't seem to talk about that much, does it?
Esoteric reference.
can submit a sworn statement alleging a copyright violation to the court clerk and have a subpoena issued
I'd like to clarify a bit here, for other readers.
They must submit a sworn statment that they have a copyright on something - anything (or that they represent a copyright holder). This sworn statement is pretty meaningless, I can file such a statement that I am the copyright holder of this post.
Aside from that sworn statement, the paperwork must make a claim that the target of the subpeona commited infingement. Not only is this NOT a sworn statement, it can be an entirely baseless statement.
This paperwork is then given to the court clerk, NOT a judge. The court clerk's only job is to make sure you didn't botch the paperwork. He is then required to give rubberstamp approval. The involvement of the court is pure formality, in effect the DMCA grants copyright holders the power to issue subeonas. The process lacks any actual judical review.
The DMCA is an insanely lopsided peice of legislation, written by the copyright lobby for the copyright lobby. This "expedited subpeona process" granted to copyright holders is just one of many abuses written into the law. God forbid copyright holders should be forced to go through the NORMAL and LEGITIMATE subpeona process, just like EVERYONE ELSE.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.