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

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.

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.

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:Enemies List

[DAldredge]

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

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: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.