Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rules Against RIAA in DMCA Subpoena Case
JohnTheFisherman writes "My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is great news." We've been following this case for a while.
According to this CNN story posted a few minutes back, a U.S. appeals court says that the RIAA's methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law. "The 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit". Note that Verizon suffered setbacks earlier in it's case against the RIAA as reported here
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
First, this is good news but not great. The RIAA can't get subpoenas under these circumstances, but the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional, so the door is not completely shut.
Second, before you ask, this only covers one federal circuit (& the smallest one at that), not the entire nation, but in intellectual property matters what the DC Circuit says usually goes.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
Here's the full text of the ruling.
Interestingly, this is the exact same appeals court that overturned the decision against Microsoft. It's good to know that there are cool, compassionate people in charge of the courts who don't listen to which way the prevailing "geek winds" are blowing on e issue or another but instead disspassionately apply the law. It appears that in their mind, the RIAA is as mistaken as Microsoft was innocent.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
What does GWB have to do with it? The DMCA was signed by you man Clinton.
the RIAA can still subpoena your personal info. they just are prohibited from doing so without first formally filing a lawsuit against every john/jane doe they wish to sue.
This ruling pertains only to the Verizon case, although it has implications for other current cases. It doesn't apply to cases already settled, especially since they were settled out of court.
Nope. They settled, so they lost all right to complain. Not only that, but the fact that they were "already snagged" means that this decision is meaningless as to them. This only covers subpoena-ing names from ISPs, not liability of downloaders.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
I submitted this, but not soon enough.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
This really has nothing to do with that - only that the ISP cannot be compelled to release the data, and that the DMCA does not apply to peer-to-peer file sharing.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
So Verizon didn't come through with shining colors, but at least the Rediculous Industry Assoc. of America to a hit too.
Keep in mind that that was the trial judge that stated that, not the appelate judges. It was the trial judge's original ruling that was overruled on appeal.
The Dutch courts have ruled that the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a worldwide analogue of the RIAA), can not sue Kazaa for the transgressions of its users (e.g.). This means Kazaa will be available for legal filesharing, and the recording industry must go after individuals who engage in illegal filesharing.
The Dutch make up about 20% of the world's filesharing individuals, according to the article.
This is only people they couldn't find on their own and were forced to subpoena isp's for. It's only about 5 individuals so far this effects.
Settle down there fruit cake. A little backgound information for you. It was Bill Clinton that signed the DMCA into law. Yes I'm aware that it was passed by a Republic controlled House and Senate, but the buck stops with the president. Clinton had veto power, he could have stopped the bill from ever becoming law and he opted not to. Both Republicans and Democrats are respondible for the DCMA and for it's abuses. There are RIAA / MPAA / DCMA advocates on both sides of the isle (Frits Hollings springs to mind on the Democratic side). There are also those on both sides of the isle that oppose the abuses by the RIAA. Norm Coleman (Republican - MN) is having hearings in the Senate on the RIAA tatics.
The bottom line is that both sides are responsible for the DMCA. Peddle your bull shit somwhere else.
But P2P technology is not radically different from, say, hosting an FTP server on your home computer. Basically, a P2P network is simply a long list of active file servers, with some added search and partial-download perks. It helps the file searcher work around problems such as firewalls and DHCP addresses, which are usually associated with home-user ISPs. Point-to-point file transfer software existed when the DMCA was signed, and had for many years. It just wasn't mainstream.
My point here is that I don't think the ruling would have changed if P2P existed in 1998, since in a way, it did. Verizon is still not liable for the copyrighted information stored on home users' computers, even if they are sharing that information with the world via a public FTP site.
Most home-user ISPs have clauses in their contracts which prohibit running servers from a home computer (unless that right is bought specifically as a service), and there may come a day when P2P like KaZaA and WinMX are ruled to be "servers," since members of the general public can access the files. So Verizon may have to stop allowing such "file servers" on their network, according to their home user contract, but they are still not legally responsible for the content ON the servers, and therefore cannot be forced to give up names.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
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.
So he was just saying that the DMCA was not broad enough. If you had RTFA (oh, wait... this is Slashdot!), you may be convinced (as I am), that this ruling spells BAD news for the future. The judge is essentially saying "Hey, Congress! You need to write some broader, more restrictive laws. There's too many loopholes in this one! Let's get a tighter reign on this Internet thing".
Note for example, that even though he ruled in favor of Verizon, he thinks their argument makes for bad policy:
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." (emphasis mine)
So, he's telling congress to close that loophole. This opens the door for all kinds of new laws, like using ISPs for monitoring, enforcement, even usage taxes (email taxes, anyone?).
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
IANAL, but if that is indeed the case, you might want to go review your privacy protection and think about getting another ISP. Generally, when you sign on with them, they agree to protect all personal information you submit as per the Personal Privacy Act of 1975. That states that the information you give to them is given in the good faith that they will not hand it off to anyone who does not have your best interests in mind.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the subpoena process and left that question open. The court also said that there is a giant loophole that remains open. So, until the constitutionality question gets addressed, we're all still in a state of limbo.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Here is the DC Appeals court opinion (in PDF): RIAA v. Verizon Internet.
"Comcast considers subscribers' personally identifiable information to be confidential. We will only disclose personally identifiable information to third parties under an obligation of confidentiality and for a limited purpose consistent with this Policy."
It looks like I'm covered - at least if they gave the RIAA my info they couldn't sue me "confidentially." Also I noticed they won't disclose what their users do, but I guess the RIAA snoops that on their own anyway.
BZZZ. Comcast has been handing over customer information without a complaint. I am glad to have one company (Verizon) stand up for it's users when it has little financial motivation to do so, and would encourage business decisions that let Verizon know we appreciate their actions.
That's just begging the question. Try again, but without putting your conclusion in the premise.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.
Origins: No,
Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The derisive "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs are misleading distortions of something he said (taken out of context) during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible for helping to create I also invented the microphone the environment (in an economic and legislative sense) that fostered the development of the Internet. Al Gore might not know nearly as much about the Internet and other technologies as his image would have us believe, and he certainly has been guilty of stretching (if not outright breaking) the truth before, but to believe that Gore seriously thought he could take credit for the "invention" of the Internet -- in the sense offered by the media -- is just silly. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean the same thing: If they mean the same thing, then why have the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet when he never used that word? The answer is that the words don't mean the same thing, but by substituting one word for the other, commentators can make Gore's claim sound [more] ridiculous.)
However, validating even the lesser claim Gore intended to make is problematic. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."
It's true that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet) and has introduced a few bills dealing with education and the Internet, but even though Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President Gore may always have been interested in and well-informed about information technology issues, that's a far cry from having taken an active, vital leadership role in bringing about those technologies. Even if Al Gore had never entered the political arena, we'd probably still be reading web pages via the Internet today.
Last updated: 27 September 2000
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Downhill Battle is calling for the record companies to return the money they've gotten from the suits so far. How would you feel if you just coughed up $5,000 to the RIAA and now you find out they weren't even supposed to get your name?
ISPs can voluntarity give out the info, but they may violate promises of privacy made to the service user if they do. They oould also face lawsuits from other corporations if they give out such info selectively and their choice of who to give it to in any way reflects their own financial interests. (I.e. AOL respecting all requests related to Time-Warner, but not from other's alledging infringment, would be engaging in practices that might violate antitrust).
Once it becomes an ISPs choice, they also lose the defense of complying with the court, which was protecting them from many lawsuits.
The user's strategy is clear. Get a small ISP, so if you need to sue them, they can't afford a billion dollar legal team. Get one that has a privacy clause in their contract. Read it carefully.
Who is John Cabal?
No, I think a technical ruling would involve phrases such as "copyright infringement".
Much different than stealing.
They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
And statisticts! Woo!
Your big, stinking lie was to omit the fact that 3/4 is the rate of overturning for all circuits, not just the 9th. So your 3/4th statistic is meaningless, and your implication that they make bad decisions due to liberal stacking is baseless.
Here's a
site that is clearly not a fan of the 9th Circuit court. According to their data, the 9th Circuit has had 18 of 24 cases overturned, or 75%. The rest of the circuits had a total of 41 of 56 cases overturned, or 73.2%. That's an average. Some circuits have an overturn rate of 100%.
Have a nice day.
The enemies of Democracy are
To say that Jesus Christs parents were married is ... strange.
... dubious. One of the ways to be considered married was for a man and a woman to go on a trip together. So in THAT sense, they were, indeed, considered married. But that hardly maps at all well onto the current understanding of the term.
At that time the formalities of marriage were
The reason for this is actually fairly simple. When there aren't any significant property issues, the state and church tend to ignore the formalities. In the early US, e.g., proof of marriage would be something as simple as a page in the family bible that said you were married. And if you had moved, nobody would know when it had been filled out, or who had signed it. And few would care. But this didn't work as well when property got involved. And then the government decided that people were easier to rule if you kept track of them, so a rule was propagated that all people had to record their marriages with the county clerk. And it progressed from there.
But the modern concept of marriage owes a lot more to the state wanting to track everyone than it does to any religious rule.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The guy in the original post said:
...he took the initiative in creating the Internet.
not that Al Gore created the Internet so lay off please!
"It is NOT the job of the judiciary to MAKE law -- it's the job to interpret the law and make sure it falls within the frame work of the constitution."
Then perhaps it would be interesting to read the closing statement of the court's judgement in the case which this story is about.
From The Register:
"It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries. The plight of copyrightholders must be addressed in the first instance by the Congress; only the Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology."
There are many good articles out there about Common Carrier laws and regulations. I suggest you read them. I think this lawsuit will have minimal impact on ISP's common carrier status.
Internet service today, as far as I understand, is not a Common Carrier service by anyones definition. The government doesn't require anyone to provide Internet service at a fixed price. The government doesn't regulate Internet service (although, perhaps some of the underlying infrastructure). I don't think this relatively minor (in the context of common carrier status) point makes a difference.
That said, most ISP's want to act like common carriers. They usually want to sell to everyone at the published price, and want to carry all content without making editorial decisions. There are some (large) exceptions, but that's broadly true. Does that mean they should be regulated? Probably not. Common Carrier's history was to provide service to people private companies didn't want to service. Since ISP's seem to want to service everyone (within some limits) in a sense for now they can have the best of both worlds.
Of course, that could all change at any time.
Who cares who controlled the house and senate? No senators voted against it. [url]http://www.educause.edu/pub/wu/1998/19980519. html#0[/url]