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.'"

Comments

Re:Subpoenas?

[geoffspear]

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.

Re:Subpoenas?

[DeepRedux]

The subpoenas are issued by a Federal district court at the request of the RIAA. The RIAA, just like any other copyright holder, can submit a sworn statement alleging a copyright violation to the court clerk and have a subpoena issued.

The party being subpoenaed (here Charter Communications) has the right to challenge the subpoena in court.

statistics of riaa

[potpie]

the riaa claims to have lost millions of dollars. The yearend reports can be found here in pdf format:
http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/yearend.asp

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?

Re:Subpoenas?

[Alsee]

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.

-