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.
This is a huge win for networks and ISP's. According to the findings of the lawsuit Companies like Verizon are not responsible for what data travels over their network. This should also effect cases where ISP's were being sued for hosting certain types of websites. While it doesn't overturn the DMCA it is a giant step toward protecting free speach.
I would like to salute the ashes of american flags, and all the fallen leaves filling up shopping bags.
Here it is. The appeals court noted that the drafters of the DMCA didn't forseee P2P technology... otherwise, the outcome may have been different.
> get tea
No Tea: dropped.
From the freep.com article:
"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.'' "
So the judges also told Verizon that part of their arguement was laughable as well.
X steps forward, Y steps back, you fill in the two variables, what do you think?
I think this ruling is like 3 steps forward, 1 step back.
I must say that I agree totally with you on all the points you've made.
Michael C. Hollinger