Slashdot Mirror
UK High Court Orders ISPs to Identify File-sharers
securitas writes "The BBC reports that the British High Court has ordered Internet service providers (ISPs) to divulge the identities of 28 customers accused of music file-sharing to the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the UK equivalent of the RIAA. The court order issued by Mr Justice Blackburne is a big victory for the BPI and its umbrella oranization, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), especially after recent setbacks in Canada (CRIA) and the USA. Blackburne is quoted as saying, 'On the face of it this appears to be a powerful case of copyright infringement.' The ISPs have 14 days to comply with the court order. More coverage at the Guardian/Reuters and the Register."
I know when I worked at an ISP (admittedly several years ago), the policy was basically to give the authorities anything they wanted, with or without an actual court order. I think most ISPs work on such slim margins that they can't really afford to try and fight a legal battle over their users' right to privacy when faced with subpoenas like this.
Having a court give sanction to the violation of privacy involved like this when it actually is challenged just makes ISPs far more likely everywhere else to keep handing over records whenever anyone asks for them.
I think the US judges are, for the most part, loathe to give the okay to what ends up being a fishing expedition. What a fine line this is.
The RIAA is tenancious and they are not going to give up until they can get to the people that they believe are stealing (their words) copyrighted material. They seem to be on a three-pronged campaign of going through the courts, the legislature, and probably the executive brance (at least for lobbying). I don't see them losing this battle.
http://www.busyweather.com/
I believe British ISPs are now legally required to keep this information, which is a serious PITA for them. The ISPA complained and complained about the terabytes of storage they would need... but I don't recall the government ever relenting.
Because of the law discussed in this article.
There was a case in the UK recently where somebody got off charges of downloading child porn because he had a trojan on his system that he claimed somebody else had been using to download the stuff in order to frame him.
"The recording industry may not agree, but the U.S. Supreme Court thinks personal privacy is far more important that music piracy," Red Herring reported. "On Tuesday, the high court refused to entertain an appeal of a unanimous 2003 decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that held that copyright holders cannot force Internet providers to identify file sharers using a mere subpoena.
Industry watchers see this as yet another blow that the recording industry has taken in its fight against online file sharing -- a fight it is slowly losing. The lawsuits in question were between New York's Verizon Internet Services and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), headquartered in Washington, D.C."
From instapundit.com 5 minutes ago, of course. :)
That's a title, you damn idiot.
Judges in Britain are called Mr Justice $surname. Just like Dukes are His Grace $fullname etc.
Phil
I guess today is a passable day to die.
It's his TITLE, not his first name! It's how you address judges in the U.K. "Mr. Justice insert family name here"
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
Mine does...all bands and laser, forwards and backwards. Valentine One However, I must admit, I've yet to live anywhere where they really have laser. Not many places in the south have it...and NOLA, heck, the cops here still predominately use X band...really old stuff, can pick them up a couple miles away...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The parent makes a good point. In the UK the Data Protection Act governs fairly tightly exactly what information could be released by an ISP and exactly to which authorities. To the best of my knowledge, the BPI is not specified under that Act.
Because there are data warehousing laws. Depending upon where you live, not tracking your customers can be just as illegal as anything those customers might do.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.