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

Great, but

[QuackQuack]

What happens to the people who have already been snagged and settled with the RIAA? Are they off the hook?

Go Judiciary! Wooooo!

[GaelenBurns]

Our courts have been making some good decisions lately. The President is no longer allowed to hold US Citizens on US soil indefinately and without charges, the MA Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage, and now the RIAA is put in its place. Strike down the Patriot Act and the good old USA is almost back on track. Gotta love that glimmer of hope.

Re:hee hee

[tds67]

Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers..

Why not go to the source--DARPA? They started this damned Internet thing in the first place. Let the federal government deal with these RIAA arseholes...that would be sweet justice, because the feds are the enablers (via DMCA and other stupid laws) of the RIAA anyway.

Re:Some more info...

[antiMStroll]

Microsoft was found to be innocent? I don't think so. The remedy was overturned, not the findings of the court.

I love the smell of Irony in the morning!

[schon]

the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional

No, but it did say (in effect) that the DMCA protects the ISPs, because the ISPs aren't hosting the files.

Imagine that! The DMCA, lobbied for by the RIAA is coming around to bite them in the ass!

Gotta love the irony!

Full text of the ruling

[g_adams27]

Here's the full text of the ruling.

It's interesting that Verizon won more or less on a single point. ISPs who discover that people are storing pirated content on their (the ISP's) servers can avoid getting in trouble by "respond[ing] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing." That part of the law hasn't changed.

However, Verizon successfully argued that the responsibility to "remove or disable access to the material" does not apply to ISPs that do not store the data, but instead act as mere conduits through which the pirated files travel. And that's exactly what's going on in the case of P2P file sharing - the illegal file is stored on the pirate's computer, not the ISP's servers.

Verizon argued that under the DMCA, in order for a subpoena to be valid, it has to contain information about infringing material "to be removed or access to which is to be disabled". Verizon argued that it can't remove the material or disable access to it. And since that requirement for issuing a subpoena cannot be met, the subpoena process does not apply to Verizon. The court agreed.

The RIAA unsucessfully argued that Verizon could remove access to the infringing material by simply cutting off access to the pirate, but the judge disagreed that that's what the DMCA was talking about when it uses the phrase "diable access".

From the ruling...
No matter what information the copyright owner may provide, the ISP can neither "remove" nor "disable access to" the infringing material because that material is not stored on the ISP's servers. Verizon can not remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers.

The ruling concludes with some sympathy by the judges for what the RIAA is trying to do, but a refusal to extend the DMCA to technology like P2P that didn't even exist when the DMCA was written. The court said that if the RIAA wants to subpoena ISPs for information about P2P file traders, it will need to get that additional authority from Congress. A good demonstration of judicial restraint, IMHO.

Re:There's a CNN story about this too

[bryansj]

I'm wondering how this could be used to overturn the lawsuits from the individuals that have already been fined by the RIAA. It seems like this ruling could be grounds for the case to be dismissed and all those 15 year olds and grandmothers won't have to pay up. Illegally collected evidence doesn't seem to stand up very well in court, per CSI episodes :)

I like how the MPAA handles this better than RIAA

[Sheepdot]

Don't get me wrong, the MPAA is just as zealous over IP as the RIAA, but I saw one of those ads before the trailers when I went to see Matrix III.

You know, the advertisements where they get a camera guy that is in an equipment storage shed talking about how pirating hurts the little guy.

Well, damn, I just felt so horrible after the ad was done that I promised myself I wouldn't pirate Matrix III. Then I saw how horrible it was over the next 2 hours and realized something huge:

The movies that I *don't* want to pirate always end up being pure crap. And the movies that I *do* pirate end up being the ones I later buy on DVD when they come out.

Disney's Pirates ... is a great example of this. "The Ring", "Frailty", "Final Destination 1 & 2", and "Signs" are others.

In fact, looking through my DVD library I'm realizing that there are several movies that I just flat out would have never have bought on DVD had I not seen them online. And I certainly wouldn't have seen them in the overpriced and crowded theatres.

So how many people are like me? And what happens to their profits when we *QUIT* catching these hidden gems online?

ISP's can VOLUNTARILY give out the info

[Darth23]

Correct? If Comcast decided that it was in their interest to help out the RIAA, could could turn over requested info on their user's names. The article seems to be saying only that an ISP can't be FORCED to reveal the information without a court order signed by a judge.

This is a mere technicality

[Cajun Hell]

The view from outside the ISP's network, is that the data is coming from the ISP. From outside, it looks the same, whether it originates on a machine under the ISP's control or a machine under their customer's control: the world just sees the packet coming from the ISP.

The intent of the DMCA's notifcation mechanism, is that the ISP either has to take responsibility for the packets they are transmitting to the rest of the world, or pass the buck to whoever is responsible. In light of that, this ruling appears to subvert the intent of the law.

The issue shouldn't be about who owns a piece of equipment; it should be about who is responsible for that equipment's behavior. DMCA was intended to identify who is responsible for copyright infringement in cases where there is a "common carrier" in the mix. Treating P2P differently than hosting, doesn't make any sense.

This is a victory only by a perverted technicality, using a loophole. It does not mean that the courts have taken pirates' side. If this ruling stands, then the people who passed DMCA are just going to ammend and "clarify" the law.

Re:silly argument

[ciphertext]

From the article:

The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.

It would appear the argument that the court found silly was, the "perceived" liability the ISP has with regards to music piracy because the pirated music is downloaded over their systems.

I can see how the Court would view this as silly. I would have ruled it as asinine, personally. Some of the counter arguments were (probably):

1. Are highway departments (states therefore) liable for DUI/DWI because those infractions occur upon their highways?
2. Are convenience stores, gas stations, and banks liable for robberies because those infractions occur within their place of business?
3. Are cities/municipalities responsible for drownings because the water used flowed through their waterways?

In all of these cases, unless you can prove the malice, I think the answer is a resounding NO! Why then should ISP's be responsible for the illegal acts of its subscribers, for which they (ISP) have no specific knowledge of even the occurence of such acts? They shouldn't be. If Verizon has reason to believe that you, the subscriber, are using their services to commit crimes; they will cancel your account and turn you over to the authorities. Verizon takes the position that its subscribers are law-abiding and then handles the exceptions. The RIAA would like the ISPs to take the position that all susbsribers are law-breakers, and need to prove otherwise. While this isn't exactly spelled out, it is a reasonable conclustion to draw.

Well

[Overly Critical Guy]

In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.'

The court also said the following:

The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry, noting that "stakes are large." But the judges said it was not the role of courts to rewrite the 1998 copyright law, "no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries."

In other words, this was a technical ruling.

The difference with Slashdot between other media outlets is that Slashdot doesn't dare mention the damage to the music industry. It's all a "culture movement," or something.

I used to disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but when I think about this situation, I really do have to wonder. There are people illegally trading music files. The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster). What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again? What do I lose from them doing that? Nobody has ever offered an actual, cohesive argument. It seems like no matter what they do, Slashdotters are against them preventing piracy of their works.

I notice people here seem to be against software piracy. Movie piracy is about 50/50. Music piracy is maybe 90/10. Why? Convenience? I don't get it. It's wrong no matter the files being traded. You didn't pay to get the music. Nobody seems to care that some human beings paid for a studio and recorded the music for a record label that distributed it for them. Instead, it's, "Down with RIAA!"

I just don't get the revolution, I guess.

Re:Well

[platypus]

Uh, at least my argument to be unsympathetic to these RIAA and whatnot types is a little bit more complex.
If the music industry wouldn't sell music for an artificially high price, a lot less people would care to pirate music. Further, a ridicously small part is going to people involved in actually producing that product, most goes into the various instances providing infrastructure for selling that music - the record labels, shops etc. Inform yourself about what young artists get for their first record.

Fact is, music labels as we know them are made redundant by the internet+compression technologies, and that is the real fight they are in. Without the need for an complex and expensive infrastructure, there's suddenly a very low barrier of entry to the market, and this is why the RIAA likes "trusted computing", bdcause they hope this will carry over a higher barrier of entry into the computing age.

A (crude) analogy to that would be if somehow there would have been a influential horse coaches industries when the car was invented. They would also have done anything in their power to prevent this new technology from making them obsolete.

Ask yourself this question:
Why does the record industry not simply put up all their music as mp3s into giant web shops and use their save in infrastructure costs to offer music significantly cheaper? So cheap that many more people would simply buy instead of pirating.

Do you really think this would make getting mp3z easier than it is now?
No, but this would open the door for everyone to enter this market, preventing the record industry from getting their ridicolous margins by demonopolizing the market.

Something similar can be seen with razor blades, I think read somewhere that razor blades are one of the most stolen items in shops. Why? Because nobody in his right mind believes that the price at which they sell is justified.

Re:Well

[SWroclawski]

I'd disagee in one area- and that's the album.

There are some music peices which are really part of a whole.

Examples that come to mind are Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Kraftert's Man Machine or others.

An artist sometimes puts an albumn together not JUST to fill up a record or CDs worth of music but as a single thing. When you say you want to rip one part of it out, I think you're doing a disservice to the artist.

The issue for me is about control and morals. The moral issue is that of cultural exchange- and that's what music, books and movies are. The issue of control is the issue of 'to what length will these companies to go keep control over consumers'.

- Serge

Re:I can't speak for everyone here

[3terrabyte]

In the end: does the RIAA have a right to sue copyright infringment? Yes.

I think $750 per song for someone not making a profit (what bootleggers truly are) is obscene. My fine could fund the whole Iraqi war. They hold that in front of you to force a settlement. That's harrassment, barratry, and inhumane.

The RIAA has used the money it has ripped off the artists for 70 years to buy more legislation so that it can act as the corporate police. It's time the government goes back to racial profiling or something it's good at, instead of propping up a monopoly that isn't needed for the good of the country.

Re:Wrong

[Loki_1929]

" Again, you ignore the real people who are deprived of money when you don't pay for their music."

Blatantly copied from one of my previous comments, but it's certainly relevant to this discussion.

Quote me:

If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.

The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support them in any way, shape, or form. I believe my argument holds very good water, as the evidence against the major music companies is plain and out in the open. Over the past 50 some-odd years, the entertainment industry has conspired to violate the laws of this country, the sanctity of the American judicial and legislative branchs, and the trust of the American public. This is not to say that they behave better in other places, I just don't have the background information to accuse them of wrongdoing in, say, France that I do for the US.

And from another brilliant comment of mine:

I find it amus