RIAA Loses DMCA Subpoena Case Against Charter

BrynM writes "According to an opinion published today (PDF), the RIAA has lost its case against Charter Communications regarding subpoenas for the cable ISP's users to be identified for copyright infringement in the Eastern District of Missouri. You may remember that Charter Communications filed a motion to block the RIAA's subpoena back in late 2003. Now Charter has prevailed. Here's the blurb from the Court 'Civil case - Digital Millennium Copyright Act. District court erred in issuing subpoenas on internet providers to obtain personal information about the providers' subscribers who were alleged to be transmitting copyrighted works via the internet through peer-to-peer programs; the internet providers' function was limited to acting as a conduit for the allegedly copyrighted material, and Section 512(h) of the Act does not authorize subpoenas in such circumstances; case remanded with directions. Dissent by Judge Murphy. [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Murphy and Bright, Circuit Judges]'"

Comments

Score one for the good guys

[krudler]

Let's just hope we can continue to win against the man like this. Respecting privacy is an important thing to me. Companies that will fight to respect your privacy are nice to have around. Even verizon (whom i can't stand), is good about privacy.

Stick it to the man!

Re:Score one for the good guys

[krudler]

That's fine by me. I'll pay a little extra to know that my privacy is insured. I'd rather support a company that follows my value system than a company that wants to sell me out. It's all worth it in my mind.

Alright!

[KaSkA101]

A win for the American Public's Rights.

Re:Alright!

[mtrisk]

Look at this, from the opinion:

The fourth safe harbor, under section 512(d), protects an ISP when it merely links users to online locations containing infringing material.

So, under the DMCA, ISPs are immune from being sued for linking to copyrighted material. IANAL, but with the recent bittorrent suits, it would seem that this would help. It also seems that if an ISP runs a tracker or a torrent website, they can't be sued under the DMCA...interesting, very interesting.

Re:Alright!

[Torgski]

Yeah, your right... the constitution nor the bill of rights don't say anything about the right to pirate music, movies and software.

However, this *IS* a win for public rights. Look at it this way, I can effectively turn your IP address into a real name and address just by sending a legal threat to your ISP. All I have to do to be able to do this is hold a copyright I think you might have infringed.

Would you want basically anyone in the world to be able to turn your IP address into your real name and address? That's what this case is about, not the morality of copyright infringement.

Although, I will argue that point since that seems to be what you want.

Well, since you brought up the constitution... one thing it does say, is that copyright is to last *17* years. Currently, if my memory serves me right, copyright lasts for the lifetime of the author, plus 100 years.

Mickey Mouse won't become public domain until at least 2066. He was created in *1928*! Disney has profitted off him for 77 years, and still has another 61 to go, unless they buy another extension law from our government, and you can safely bet the farm that they will.

The public domain, is the *PEOPLES* main benefit to copyright law. It has been stolen from us by these copyright extensions.

Anything copyrighted you read, watch, or see today, will *NEVER* become public domain, in your lifetime. Not here in the US, or any other country that has signed any of the many worldwide copyright treaties.

Now, ask yourself, is *NON-COMMERCIAL* copyright infringement that much worse then stealing the public domain out from under us?

I won't argue the commercial infringers... I support going after them, and that was how our copyright law was intended to be used back when it was written.

We used to have something called fair use. This would allow you to use copyrighted works in non-commercial ways and not be punished.

Ever record something from the radio, or the television? That's fair use.

Ever make a backup copy of your $999.99 software install disc or rare first run only played twice Elvis album, to protect it from damage or loss? That's fair use.

Have you ever copied a cd to a tape, to listen to it somewhere where you didn't have a cd player? Or, converted a cd you own to mp3 to listen to it on the device of your choice? That's fair use.

Have you ever photocopied sections of a book from the library to use for research? That's fair use.

Thanks to the DMCA, there is now a way to close all those legal loopholes too. Just encrypt the data somehow, and breaking, or even talking about that encryption is a violation.

This has already been done with Audio/Software CD's, DVD's, radio(satellite) and Television (Broadcast Flag). The only example left above that you could legally do if the media companies don't want you to in 2066 is copy a book. Let's hope e-books never replace the real thing.

Now, is non-commercial copyright infringement morally worse then stealing the rights of the public domain, AND fair use from the entire American (and damn near the whole world's) people?

Interesting copyright factoid: The song "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted. This is why resturants don't sing it. They have to pay royalties to do so. You are a copyright infringer every time you sing it in a public place and money is directly, or indirectly involved, you dirty pirate.

Finally

[Arbac]

Hopefully this will start a trend that pushes the laws in a more user friendly direction. Take that RIAA!

what's next?

[the arbiter]

I'm hoping that this can't be appealed...if so, it's really good news.

If it can, then it's not really news at all, is it?

Regardless of the outcome, kudos to Charter for realizing that they, and their users, actually have rights.

Re:what's next?

[PornMaster]

It's nice to see a corporation using its lawyers to defend its customers when giving in would have very little effect on their bottom line, and perhaps smaller than the legal fees.

Re:what's next?

[Geekenstein]

I'd say it would have a very large affect on their bottom line. Comcast is a corporation, with obligations to its stockholders. Considering you don't need all that much bandwidth to download your standard webpage in a reasonable amount of time, and your average broadband commercial mentions "downloading music and movies in high speed!", it is reasonable to assume that a large portion of their subscriber base is using the service to download media files over P2P services.

Now, say Comcast is seen as ratting out their customers to the [MP|RI]AA, and suddenly those users decide downloading those files isn't worth the risk anymore, and by the by, they no longer need broadband. Big impact on Comcast.

That's not to say this isn't a good thing for them to do, but it isn't out of the kindness of their hearts. They did the math.

Power

[Boronx]

This about fits with my experience. The only way to prevail against the might of a major corporation is to have another major corporation in your corner.

Time and effort

[adennis]

It's pretty admirable that all these companies (Charter included) are actually taking the time and cost required to fight against the subpoenas.
I'm sure this trend could have very easily gone the other way.

Re:Enemies List

[DAldredge]

"The Church Music Publishers Association" - Because it ain't about God its about the $$$.

They lost the battle...

[humuhumunukunukuapu']

...but when the RIAA et. al. get Congress to legislate what they cannot acheive in court they will win the war.

I have no hope for any sort of just or fair resolution to this situation.

Well, that and filesharing -is- wrong, IMO. But that isn't really the issue...To me this is more an issue of the inescapable march towards total corporate rule.

Re:They lost the battle...

[robogymnast]

...filesharing -is- wrong, IMO...

You have bought into their marketing bullshit my friend, filesharing cannot be "wrong", as it is simply the technology that allows people all over the world to share files between each other.

Now if you are talking about copyright infringement, that is a whole different ballgame. Please do not confuse the two.

Re:Judges Rule!

[Aneurysm9]

What gets me, though, is that he cited the DCMA on why they CAN'T subpoena.

Well, duh! The DMCA (and all of the Copyright Act for that matter) are just like the U.S. Constitution, they grant limited rights and powers. If a power is not explicitly granted by the statute, it is not available. Obviously, you must look to the DMCA to see if the DMCA grants the right to subpoena common carriers.

Re:voluntary cooperation

[femto]

But the cost of bandwidth is falling. ISPs who dob on bandwidth 'hogs' might see short term gains but suffer long term pain.

In addition, once an ISP gets a reputation for cooperating against their customers, it will lose far more customers than just the 'hogs'.

Re:Enemies List

[damiam]

Don't you mean "on behalf of the RIAA"?

Re:The subscribers are screwed anyway

[BrynM]

Anyway, Charter stands to lose money by having to hire people (PLURAL!) full-time to handle all the DMCA subpoenas, and they stand to lose subscribers (money) if they just roll over to the RIAA, as subscribers will opt for DSL in the hopes that the phone company won't roll over so easily.

This is an example of "speaking with your pocketbook". Companies take note: if you betray us, you lose us as customers. This bodes well for consumers in my opinion as it gives us at least some power in the matter.

Re:voluntary cooperation

[JamieF]

>also eliminating their bandwidth hogs.

Hellooooo.... ISPs sell bandwidth. DSL costs more than dialup. A T3 costs more than DSL. Don't take my word for it - check with your ISP. It's actually true.

You might as well say that a gas station owner would do well to ban trucks and SUVs becuase they're fuel hogs.

This is more complex....

[tdhillman]

...than this simple court decision. Rightfuly so, the court said that Charter is under no obligation to reveal information about "alleged" subscribers. That's not necessarily the best news in the world. Yes, the RIAA cannot go after just anybody, but if they can prove in a court that someone is actually distributing copyrighted material, it should be another story.

I've little time for the RIAA and they way that they function, but the others who signed on represent a number of creative people that I work with. I am still troubled by the amount of copyright infringement that goes on in the world.

It's one thing when you are getting material, it's another altogether when your material is used without permission. On one occasion, I had a school ask if they could make 500 copies of one chapter in a book I wrote for distributiuon to their students. They had no desire, or intent, to compensate me for my work.

The artists are the ones who get screwed in this- they deserve just compensation for their work and should be given such. When you can't pay the bills with your craft, you change to another craft. How many decent artists does that deny us the pleasure of seeing or hearing?

It's always about the money, but in the case of a number of industries, it's about keeping the money coming in for those who did the work. I've paid a bar tab with a royalty check- and I needed the drink. How many of us will pay the tab for artists?

Re:voluntary cooperation

[deemzzzz_k]

Actually that doesn't make much sense. An ISP makes money on accounts - not on bandwidth sold. It is far more profitable to have tons of customers who underutilize their bandwidth. Underutilization, especially with cable where bandwidth is shared, means lower expenses.

I agree with the guy who said that most broadband subscribers are folks who check their email daily and won't want to wait for cnn.com to load. It has also gotten to the price point where dial up over a dedicated phone line doesn't make economic sense. From personal experiences, a lot of people just don't want the mess of a second phone line, connect times and having to "dial in."

No, it doesn't...

[Svartalf]

But you should note the following:

1) Nowhere in the parent was it stated or implied that this was the case.

2) Nowhere in the Plantiff's complaint did they really, really meet the criteria of identifying a specific infringer (Required by law, both for Copyright and for the obviously Unconstitutional DMCA...)- ergo, a very probable instance of where the DMCA's provisions are at odds with the Fourth Ammendment. If they don't have anything on you specifically, they can't go on a fishing expidition- which is what the RIAA was on.

momentum

[Doc Ruby]

Now we need the Supreme Court to decide not to overturn the sensible "Grokster" decision (during their current session), and these copyright profiteers will have to make money by producing new products people want, rather than just extorting money every time the change the format or anything else they control.

Re:The subscribers are screwed anyway

[Andy_R]

This provides a lovely loophole for all Charter customers, if the RIAA come knocking, all they have to do is point out that the RIAA can't touch them without breaking part (3) above.

It doesn't matter that if they were not on the list that Charter supplied, becasue the RIAA can't check if they were or not without violating the ruling!

Re:So what?

[timster]

The offtopic mod you got is moderation abuse, and I have a mod point, but I decided to post instead. Sorry!

Anyway, a sibling post before mine claimed that copyright violation isn't criminal, and as others said, that's false. However, the RIAA cannot bring a criminal charge. They can ask the government to bring one, but then the government prosecutors will run the case their own way.

I think it likely that the RIAA doesn't want the risks associated with a trial they can't control or settle.

Re:but keep up on the bad guys

[PhraudulentOne]

I work for an ISP and I get the abuse mail. When I get one of these emails from RIAA/MPAA agents it is usually filled with US LAW references (they point to where the rules are but don't cite the rules themselves). They usually list the offending files , such as Shrek2 - Vid CAM CD1.mpg (75MB), and give me an IP address, but no timeframe. Then they go on to explain that they want this activity to halt immediately so that it can benefit the whole internet community blah blah blah. I explain to them that I live in Canada. We can share files legally here. The RIAA/MPAA has not proven to me that my customer is sharing any files. They have simply shown me that someone with an IP address on my network offered up some files (75MB is NOT CD1 of Shrek2) that had names similar to movies/music that they have authority over. I then ask them how this benefits the internet community as a whole. I explain that without a time, I cannot track down any users and I wouldn't do it anyway. I ask them if they have proven that these files really are what they say they are (full movies or music titles), and I never, ever get a response back from any of these agents. I suppose they are off for easier targets (or are slowly building a case against us ;) ). I will always stick up for my customers until I find they they really are damaging the internet community as a whole.