Verizon Loses Suit Over Subpoena of Subscriber Info 670
Brian Golden writes "As a result of a suit filed by the RIAA, the identity of a Verizon customer with a penchant for mp3's was ordered to be released. Man, how many people are now sweating bullets trying to remember what they downloaded?" News.com.com also has a story. If you've forgotten about this case, see our earlier story. Verizon wasn't making any sort of principled stand to protect its users' privacy, it just wanted to avoid the costs of complying with the (many) subpoenas it will now receive.
Court Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") has moved to enforce a subpoena served on Verizon Internet Services ("Verizon") under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA" or "Act"), 17 U.S.C. 512. On behalf of copyright owners, RIAA seeks the identity of an anonymous user of Verizon's service who is alleged to have infringed copyrights with respect to more than 600 songs downloaded from the Internet in a single day. The copyright owners (and thus RIAA) can discern the Internet Protocol address, but not the identity, of the alleged infringer -- only the service provider can identify the user. Verizon argues that the subpoena relates to material transmitted over Verizon's network, not stored on it, and thus falls outside the scope of the subpoena power authorized in the DMCA. RIAA counters that the subpoena power under section 512(h) of the DMCA applies to all Internet service providers, including Verizon, whether the infringing material is stored on or simply transmitted over the service provider's network.
The case thus presents a core issue of statutory interpretation relating to the scope of the subpoena authority under the DMCA. The parties, and several amici curiae, agree that this is an issue of first impression of great importance to the application of copyright law to the Internet. Indeed, they concede that this case is presented as a test case on the DMCA subpoena power.Based on the language and structure of the statute, as confirmed by the purpose and history of the legislation, the Court concludes that the subpoena power in 17 U.S.C. 512(h) applies to all Internet service providers within the scope of the DMCA, not just to those service providers storing information on a system or network at the direction of a user. Therefore, the Court grants RIAA's motion to enforce, and orders Verizon to comply with the properly issued and supported subpoena from RIAA seeking the identity of the alleged infringer.
Re:Come on! (Score:2, Informative)
The version of the story on MSNBC states that the person was sharing more than 600 song files.
I'd expect the MSNBC story may be more correct since it would be easier to tell that a user was sharing a large number of files instead of telling how many they downloaded.
Unless of course the user happened to download them all from the same RIAA honeypot in which case he might have a defense that they were publically available for download just as a page on a HTTP server is publically available. After all if he downloaded the songs from the RIAA and that is how the found out he downloaded 600 file then they be at fault for sharing them in the first place.
Of course IANAL and that is just my 2 cents worth.
As far as taking the music without paying for it anyone can do that over the radio and in any case I don't recall the RIAA giveing me any sort of recompense for attempting to take my fair use rights.
Re:too easy... (Score:3, Informative)
two words.. (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it is not as fast as the P2P clients, but it is slowly getting there. The more poeple use it the better it will get.
Re:Simple Solution for ISPs (Score:2, Informative)
Stop keeping logs of users. Just issue DHCP at random and be done with it.
Willful ignorance is not a defense to the law. (Remember Napster tried to claim that they were merely providing a file swapping service and they didn't monitor which files people were trading.)
-a
Alternate newsie source (Score:4, Informative)
The Globe and Mail [globeandmail.com] also has an article about this.
Check out the scary "John Doe" clause.
They're monitoring P2P, not sniffing the internet (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dump Verizon (Score:3, Informative)
They only sort-of tried to stand up for one of their customers. They really tried to stand up for their checkbook, which will take a big hit if the RIAA can suddenly subpoena thousands of IP #'s every week. The fact that this caused them to stand up for one of their customers was really only a side effect. Trust me, I live in one of their service areas, and they're not known as a great company. Then again, I don't know any phone company anyone actually *likes*.
Re:too easy... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:600 a day? (Score:3, Informative)
His machine was the server, not the client. Put a machine with a few popular songs on any sharing network and you're likely to saturate your outgoing bandwith constantly. So yes, he could've shared 600 songs in a day, by uploading them. Of course, whether he actually uploaded 600 songs in one day isn't necessary here, since they might only be claiming he made 600 songs available over the course of one day. Thus, if he'd ripped 50 cds he owned and put them up on a network, suddenly one could argue that he's sharing 600 songs.
Of course, if I were his lawyer, I'd ask to see the copies they downloaded of each song to verify that the songs were really the song the filename said it was. After all, if they didn't check, how do they know the songs weren't garbage. (Aside from the fact that they hired the artists and know first-hand that the music was garbage.)
Seriously, though, as usual the slashdot article was just a little off. It should've read he served or uploaded 600 files in a single day.
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:5, Informative)
And what if some cracker has rooted your machine with some trojan and is doing the downloading of kiddy porn. But the FBI only sees your IP address and when they ask the owner of that IP address (the ISP) to identify the user using that IP at that specific time, they come to you. You "claim" you "don't know anything about this" but of course the FBI won't believe that. They take your computer, your fax, all your CDs, all your disks, your home movies, go through your closets, your drawers, ask you to open up that safety deposit box you have at the bank that your spouce doesn't know about, ect...
Far-fetched? Not at all.
And as far as I can tell from the parent post, the poster isn't claiming that the internet should be a place for actions without consequences.
What we're talking about is the loss of privacy. Now any organization can subpoena your ISP claiming they saw W.X.Y.Z IP address downloading or sharing copyrighted music. They don't stop to question whether or not it's legal. (Yes, downloading an mp3 off an album you own is very legal.) The ISP, after this court's ruling, will be far more inclined to give up that information outright and most likely without your knowledge.
So now the company can go and subpoena a thousand IP addresses a week to an ISP. From that they can start to keep track of who is online and when and what they're doing. Suddly there's a database that notes who you are, your typical online hours, and what FILES (not songs, remember p2p is more than just mp3s) you may have on your computer.
Sure you might be innocent.
But they've got all this personal information about you and they've done it legally.
Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
'Cause that's where we are.
Re:too easy... (Score:3, Informative)
For the first kind, the ticket always goes to the owner, and I've never heard of an owner being able to claim someone else did it. An automated ticket, of course, only refers to the second kind. A traditional driver at fault ticket happens when a police officer pulls the driver over, identifies who's driving, and gives the driver a ticket. In the current automated systems, a photo of the car is taken. Then, later, if the driver wants to say my lead-footed friend borrowed the car, he'll have to tell them the lead-footed friend's name so they can serve the ticket to him instead. There's photo-proof that the owner wasn't driving, in that case, but they'll probably hold the owner liable until the driver at the time is located.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:too easy... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d09/vc17150.htm [ca.gov]
That deals with civil liability- I'm too lazy to look up how traffic violations are handled.
CNN terminology problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe not before their contract is signed, but once it is, anything and everything that artist records is property of the RIAA. Forever.
They are a partner in the process, not a slave, despite what a lot of people want you to believe.
Would you call a record label who refuses to release material, and only signs a contract to silence an artist that would compete with an artist already on their label a partner? What about a label that refuses to fund an artist, yet will not let them out of their contract? Are they a partner? The RIAA and its member labels do not care about artist success, creative product, or anything but cold, hard cash. They aren't partners in jack shit.
It's the organizers who are the most valuable, which is why they tend to make the most money.
No, and no. Who creates the most value in art? The person who creates it, or the person who packages it? Is the owner of the printing press more valuable than the author in creating a book? Of course not. The work exists, and has value to every single person who enjoys it. It doesn't have to reach millions in order to be valuable.
If the RIAA is so valuable, then why do they have to use artificial means such as legislation to protect what should be inherent value?
Re:Another news flash... (Score:2, Informative)
Incidentally, the Bush Administartion is pushing to eliminate tax on stock dividends. How's that for a free giveaway for the rich?
There is no wealth tax in the USA. There is only an income tax. Additionally, it is possible to increase your wealth (such as with the tax-free muni bonds that I mentioned) without getting taxed.
I think the poster two levels up brings up a great point that the income tax is really a shield to make it difficult for hard-working people to join the ranks of the wealthy. (Keep in mind that the income tax is a tax on money earned from work, while dividends and interest are money earned by merely sitting on your butt.)
Re:Another news flash... (Score:2, Informative)
As for elimiation of tax on stock divdends, that's not just for the rich. I have stocks, and I'm poor. It's nice to have your money work for you, for a change.
Everyone Relax (Score:1, Informative)
First, you need to realize that there is a definite split between criminal and civil law. The RIAA CANNOT bring criminal charges against you. The RIAA cannot put you in jail, prison or on probation. Only a government law enforcement agency can bring criminal charges against you. However, any group or individual can bring suit against any other group or individual.
Second, the RIAA subpoenaing records from Verizon was perfectly legal, proper and just. Whatever their motive, they have a right to do so, just as each and every one of us have a right to subpoena. It is reviewed by a court, and decisions can be appealed if you don't agree with them.
Third, since the RIAA can only pursue a civil case against this individual, they can only ask for a few remedies, such as money, an injunction to stop, and a few other things depending on the jurisdiction (state, federal, etc.) the suit is brought in. In all liklihood, the RIAA will NOT be able to recover their attorney fees and other litigation-related costs.
Fourth, there is an incredible amount of cost involved in bringing a suit. The RIAA can expect to spend upwards of $100,000 to bring suit against each person they want to sue. This means that they will probably not be able to afford to sue every person out there. They are most likely doing this to intimidate people into stopping. They know very well how expensive litigation is.
Fifth, if, in the unlikely fact that the RIAA does sue you, the amount they will be able to recover is pretty small. Though it depends on the jurisdiction, again, they most likely will NOT be able to sue for their costs, attorney fees, etc. They will probably only be able to sue for their actual damages. Again, this depends on several factors, but it would apply to most cases.
Sixth, though you can always hire an attorney to defend yourself, it is legal EVERYWHERE to appear pro se (or pro per in some states) to defend yourself. Though the law is complex and difficult, there are enough resources out there to learn a lot. Nolo Law is particularly good. Use what you learn to make discovery requests on the RIAA for whatever information you need to defend yourself. Most jurisdictions will also allow you to request a jury trial, too. Go in there, have your say, and see what happens. If you don't like the decision, you can always appeal it. Also remember that any such case will get a lot of media attention, and the RIAA might not be too keen to go into a jury trial with a pro se litigant. When you're dealing with another attorney, you usually have a pretty good idea what the other side will do. However, when dealing with a pro se litigant, ANYTHING can happen (and frequently does, I know). This is a scary reality for any group that has a PR department, especially when the cameras are rolling. So don't be intimidated; go in and argue your heart out.
Remember, they can't sue everyone. I can't advise anyone to do anything illegal, so don't, but at least you now know more about how the system works. Don't flame me for defending the RIAA's right to subpoena or telling you not to engage in illegal activity; believe me, the right to subpoena is a very powerful one you wouldn't want to lose and the laws are there for a reason. If you have a problem with the law, pressure your local, state and federal politicans. In many states you have the right to start ballot initiatives and other similar processes so USE THEM. If you don't, who will? I hope this was helpful.