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

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.

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.

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 $$$.

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.

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

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: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.

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.