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

I am safe!

[XaviorPenguin]

I am in St. Louis, MO and use Charter. I have been following this for a while and I am glad that this is over. I won't be getting caught! :D

Re:I am safe!

[eSims]

XaviorPenguin!

Stop reading slashdot and stand in the middle of the room!

Yes, you!

We've had our eye on you for a while and our agents will be there shortly to aprehend you for your criminal acts, and yes, Room 101 is waiting!

/obscure "1984" reference

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?

[overshoot]

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

It can be appealed twice more yet: to the Circuit Court sitting en banc and to the United States Supreme Court. The Circuit can decline to hear the case en banc and the Supreme Court can refuse certiorari, but the right of appeal is still there.

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.

voluntary cooperation

[deemzzzz_k]

While this seems like a real win I am quite curious when we'll see the first "voluntary cooperation" from ISPs. Why would the ISPs cooperate when they could lose clients? File sharing, especially those who run servers with large video files are bandwidth hogs. By voluntarily complying not only are they getting a good nod from RIAA/MPAA (which they will need once they all start selling PVRs) but also eliminating their bandwidth hogs.

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: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.

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."

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:So what?

[excaliber19]

Copywrite infringement

Oh, so is Copyright infringement...

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.

Enemies List

[the arbiter]

Those who filed "Amici" on behalf of Charter...in other words, those who were willing to go on record supporting this lawsuit.

Lotta folks on this here fishin' trip:

MPAA
Association of American Publishers
Association for Independent Music
AFM (U.S. and Canada)
AFMA
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
American Society of Media Photographers
The Author's Guild, Inc.
Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
Business Software Alliance (BSA) - (Is there anything these assholes won't stick their noses in?)
The Church Music Publishers Association
Director's Guild of America
Entertainment Artists
Graphic Artists Guild, Inc.
Office of the Commisioner of Baseball (wtf?)
Professional Photographers of America
Recording Artists Coalition
Screen Actors Guild, Inc. (SAG)
SESAC, Inc.
Songwriters Guild of America
Software and Information Industry Association
Writer's Guild of America
West, Inc.

Re:Enemies List

[DAldredge]

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

Re:Enemies List

[damiam]

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

Re:Enemies List

[karnal]

Because as you know, you can't go platinum. It's just Myrrh (sp?) or double Myrrh.

Re:So what?

[EvanED]

While I wish this were true, it's another illustration why /. needs a (-1, Wrong) mod...

17 USC 506 describes the criminal copyright offenses.

This doesn't really change anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA/MPAA have already changed to John/Jane Doe lawsuits rather than filing subpoenas.

In fact that very method is suggested in this decision as an alternative.

Re:Freedom

[MaineCoon]

little glimpse into our great paste

Even though it has at times been a sticky paste.

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

[DAldredge]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Armegeddon?

[Mr. Cancelled]

We've got Bush getting re-elected (and nutcases putting up webpages about it), biblical-sized disasters occuring, and now someone made a sensible decision in a case involving the RIAA???

Dunno 'bout you, but I'm going to start stockin' up on canned food and shotgun shells.

Re:Armegeddon?

[SunFan]

Dunno 'bout you, but I'm going to start stockin' up on canned food and shotgun shells.

Do it properly by first coating your cans in wax, boxing them up into crates, and burying them 10 feet down in your back yard with metal mixed into the fill dirt to confuse treasure hunters. Bury the shovel you used on the cans elsewhere with more metal in the fill dirt. Also, learn how to live in a nice tree. The looters will find you in your house. Oh, and don't forget your copy of Klingon dictionary. You will be needing it...I can't say any more.

The subscribers are screwed anyway

[crimethinker]

Charter lost a few emergency motions to quash the subpoenas, and had to turn over the first batch of names in late 2003, so those people are already within the RIAA's grasp.

What is noteworthy here is that Charter is appealing the case (and racking up legal fees) even after it already had to hand over the goods; the battle (not the war, yet) was lost, but Charter is now saying that the court should have stayed the order. If they're fighting on principle, I say good for them. Maybe they just want to set a precedent so that the next request (maybe for 20,000 names) won't go through.

Most of the posts I see right now say that it's great they care about their subscribers' privacy, to which I say bollocks. Charter, like every cable company cares about one thing: money. Think about it: with all the extra digital channels, what do they have? At least 20 channels of pay-per-view and another 10 or so of home-shopping. Most of the rest of the channels are pretty craptastic, too. And no, they won't sell you just the few channels you want to watch; buy a package for an inflated price, or suck eggs.

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.

-paul

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:The subscribers are screwed anyway

[Sylver Dragon]

Actualy, the judges addressed this. From the decision (With a bit of re-formatting):

This matter is hereby remanded so the district court may:
(1) Order the RIAA to return to Charter any and all information obtained from the subpoenas;
(2) Order the RIAA to maintain no record of information derived from the subpoenas;
(3) Order the RIAA to make no further use of the subscriber data obtained via the subpoenas; and
(d) Grant such other relief not inconsistent with this order the district court deems appropriate in these circumstances.

Basically, from the way I read that the RIAA has to give all of the information back, and cannot keep a copy, or act on it. What would be fun is, if they do act on it, or continue action on it, they might end up violating a court order and get smacked down by the courts. But, I'm guessing that won't happen, the RIAA people are scum, but they aren't stupid.

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!

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:So what?

[Sleetan]

Maybe it needs a (+1, Wrong) so it'll be easier for people to see when someone is

Don't Get Too Excited

[karate_mime]

The case only stopps the RIAA from using one tactic against file sharing. The footnote on page 6 of the decision explains:

"This case has wide-reaching ramifications, because as a practical matter, copyright owners cannot deter unlawful peer-to-peer file transfers unless they can learn the identities of persons engaged in that activity. However, organizations such as the RIAA can also employ alternative avenues to seek this information, such as "John Doe" lawsuits. In such lawsuits, many of which are now pending in district courts across the country, organizations such as the RIAA can file a John Doe suit, along with a motion for third-party discovery of the identity of the otherwise ananymouse "John Doe" defendant."

This is a win for Charter not the people.

./k

so what?

[memfrob]

The judgement merely states that they can't go on their previous fishing expeditions. It doesn't say they can't submit John Doe subpoenas; as a matter of fact, they've been doing just that for the past 6 months. If you RTFO, you'll see that it even suggests just that. This just protects the ISP...

but keep up on the bad guys

[Anonymous Coward]

We're a little ISP "good guy" - have stood up for our customers when DMCA threats come. Often the offending party is a minor in a residential household, or a small business with an infected Windows server that some rogue has converted into a filesharing server without their knowledge or consent.

We receive threats from the law firms of content owners, such as the publisher of the Harry Potter series. Their demands are not only unethical, but are clearly not consistent with the provisions under the DMCA (we have a registered agent, for instance, yet they refuse to go through it).

Here's what the Harry Potter publishers like to do:

1. send you a demand that you shut off the alleged offending party immediately. I stress "alleged" because they provide no evidence other than an IP address.

2. send your upstream provider a threat that if you don't permenantly cut off the alleged party, they will send their attorneys on the upstream as well. Our upstream (a large national NSP) is occasionally competent, but unfortunately has low-level clerical hacks that deal with DMCA complaints. They have no legal training, are unaware of the registered agent process, and make representations regarding the alleged party that an attorney could easily construe as defamation (one must *always* be careful what one accuses another party of; god forbid the other party can afford competent counsel and wants to rub your nose in your errors). Threats of litigation are also in this dangerous category; one must not threaten unless one has the will and means to follow it up, as well as bear the legal and financial consequence of having a big mouth.

We have a polite but legal response to these content owners, reminding them of their responsibilities under DMCA. In most cases they go away, looking for other easy targets. Once they're aware that the recepient ISP is not unaware of the law, they're off to easier hunting. Because people like me rarely mention their unethical and potentially illegal actions, they believe they have no consequence. Harry Potter's publisher certainly has no financial consequence - who is going to boycott them? Heck, they could propose and contribute money to genocide, sacrifice babies and exterminate little old ladies and they'd still have record sales.

Perhaps it's sufficient to patronize competent service providers...

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.

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?

The RIAA is being monopolistic

[potpie]

The way I understand this, people won't pirate nearly as much if the prices of CD's go down.

From what I've learned in economics, the price level should be determined by where supply and demand meet. Therefore, any price should yield similar profits, just from more or fewer people paying it. But the recording industry is attempting to operate as a monopoly (price fixing, etc.), which changes the model. Since it has no competition, it probably bases it's pricing not on where demand and supply meet, but at the most efficient point of the production possibilities curve, which guarantees the most money for the cheapest product. However, the price it fixes at is higher than what most people want to pay, so many people would rather pirate the stuff. The correct decision in a free market economy would just be to lower the price, but the industry is instead trying to take out piracy (using very shady tactics) so it can keep pricing music without regard to supply and demand.

The way I see it, the only way to lower the prices on CD's and reduce piracy and make everybody happy is to keep the music industry from operating as a single entity.

So the only logical answer I can think of to end all this suing and gestapo-like behavior is to get something truly done about the RIAA's monopolistic actions (attacking them for price fixing is good).

The process of law

[tsstahl]

All this ruling does is preserve due process in achieving RIAA's legal ends. This is not a victory for the people. The people we are talking about really _ARE_ infringing on copyrights in most cases.

What this ruling does do is make pursuing the actual infringers more expensive and annoying for RIAA and the like. Instead of getting blanket subpoenas en masse from a court a jillion miles away, they have been told to hire local council, file a John Doe lawsuit, and then file a subpoena for the information. Judicial oversite of the process is preserved, and a bunch of local lawyers will make more than the average amount collected from the alleged infringer for each suit filed.

Re:The process of law

[MacWiz]

Did you read the ruling?

"The dispute arose when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) requested the clerk of the district court to issue subpoenas under 512(h) to Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter),1 in its capacity as an ISP, requiring Charter to turn over the identities of persons believed to be engaging in unlawful copyright infringement. The district court issued the subpoenas and denied Charter's motion to quash. We reverse."

This was not a blanket subpoena. Plural. Multiple subpoenas.

This Circuit has never determined whether music downloaded from P2P systems violates the copyright owner's rights or is a fair use. The RIAA, to our knowledge, has never prevailed in any infringement actions brought against individual downloaders.

Sounds more like the courts think that maybe, after filing a mere 7,000 or so civil cases, the RIAA ought to have to prove, oh, one of them.

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: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.