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.

Comments

There's a CNN story about this too

[GillBates0]

Here's my submission of the story:

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

Two comments:

[GnrlFajita]

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.

Some more info...

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

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.

Re:What's going on?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does GWB have to do with it? The DMCA was signed by you man Clinton.

not quite

[capoccia]

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.

Another story in the Detroit Free Press...

[MikeVx]

I submitted this, but not soon enough.

In related news.

[blair1q]

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.

Re:What's going on?

[Luscious868]

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.

DC Appeals Court Opinion

[cypherwise]

Here is the DC Appeals court opinion (in PDF): RIAA v. Verizon Internet.

Re:Well

[jmac880n]

I think if you asked for a technical ruling on this the answer would be "Yes, that is stealing."

No, I think a technical ruling would involve phrases such as "copyright infringement".

Much different than stealing.

Lies, damn lies...

[Chris Burke]

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.

Re:Lies, damn lies...

[Jhon]

*MY" big stinking lie, huh? I think you need to actually READ the articles you cite:

This means that, on average, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was more than twice as likely to be reviewed and produce a written decision by the U.S. Supreme Court than was a case from the other federal appeals courts. By contrast, a case from the second busiest circuit, the 5th, was nearly a third less likely to be reviewed and decided by the High Court than the average federal appellate case.

and

It is true that the overall reversal rate of the 9th Circuit (75%) was lower than that of other federal appellate courts ... which were all reversed 100% of the time this past term. Yet these "complete" reversal rates are likely due to much less frequent review of those circuits by the U.S. Supreme Court. ... Thus, the 9th Circuit's lower overall reversal rate does not demonstrate the justices' greater agreement with the decisions of the 9th Circuit, but is likely attributable to that circuit's much higher review rate.

Have a nicer day -- and maybe try to digest what you read.