RIAA Loses DMCA Subpoena Case Against Charter 372
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]'"
Re:what's next? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Enemies List (Score:5, Informative)
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:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
17 USC 506 [cornell.edu] describes the criminal copyright offenses.
This doesn't really change anything... (Score:3, Informative)
In fact that very method is suggested in this decision as an alternative.
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
The subscribers are screwed anyway (Score:5, Informative)
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:Time and effort (Score:3, Informative)
Still, I'll take a win that keeps the corporations from usurping law enforcement's role, regardless of the motive that brought it to us...
so what? (Score:3, Informative)
Them's fightin' words (Score:2, Informative)
Don't provoke Congress...they'll just come back with Section 512(h) VERSION 2.0.
Re:The subscribers are screwed anyway (Score:5, Informative)
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.
A loophole that may be plugged? (Score:2, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but given that interpretation it's basically impossible to use the subpoena power of the DMCA against anyone other than a web hosting company. Not that I'm complaining, but I doubt that's what was intended in the law, and I can definitely see that either being reversed higher up or ammended if necessary.
On the other hand, it basically leaves the law in a position where it can be used against "commercial" infringement (including someone else's content on your web site. not that all sites are commercial, of course), but leaves "sharing" beyond the reach of the law.
Of course content owners can still send warning letters to some ISP's and get your service canceled (cough
I'd really love to see the whole law ammended out of existance, but anyways...
Re:Power (Score:3, Informative)
Like so many things, its not the thing itself, but how it's used. Consider:
1. P2P software can be used for perfectly legal purposes, or infringing purposes.
2. Cars can be used to go to work, or smuggle drugs
3. Guns can be used for personal defense, shooting sports, hunting, or to commit crimes and kill people
4. Speech can be used to inform or slander
5. Knives can be used to cook or kill people
P2P use is growing, and that is good for ISPs. My favorite P2P program is Skype, which I use for all sorts of communications, including to the PSTN (using SkypeOut). As far as I know, everything I do is legal.
It is not good business, however, to facilitate the commission of a crime. The main problem for the industry as a whole is how to promote the legal use of new technologies (such as P2P) while preventing illegal use.
Different definition of link. (Score:3, Informative)
Link here means relaying information by providing the physical link to the end user - I send a request from my computer destined for a remote computer, the ISP is not liable if they merely forward my request, and/or return the reply.
That's different than "Here's a list of copywritten stuff you can download without the owner's permission!"
Re:Freedom (Score:3, Informative)
Why? The Judicial branch is mostly the only form of government that is not corrupted. They don't take bribes like Senators and the Executive branches do. This allows them to speak sense without restriction. This is a rare example of how the United States is supposed to function; it is a little glimpse into our great paste. Savor in this moment people, for it is rare.
You're generally right, except for judges in states where they need to be elected. There is growing concern in the judicial community that this practice hinders the judge's ability to be impartial because they have to fund raise like any other politician. Interestingly enough, Missouri has both systems in place.
According to this [64.233.167.104]:
In Missouri , judges are selected by one of two methods: election; and the so-called " Missouri system." Most counties elect trial court judges . The rest of the judges , including the judges of the three courts of appeals and the justices of the supreme court, are appointed by the Governor. The trial court judges selected in this way are mainly in urban areas where election fraud, etc., was a problem in the time of the political machines.
However, the Governor does not have every lawyer in the state from whom to choose. Rather, nominees must be screened by a judicial selection commission composed of lawyers from the jurisdiction who themselves have been by all lawyers in the area. The commission presents the Governor with a panel of three names from which to choose. The Governor may either choose one, or reject the entire panel, whereupon the entire process begins anew.
In this case, it sounds like we're looking at an appointed judge, which explains why he was so literal with the law (in this case, it's a good thing ). I think it might be an interesting exercise to look at the verdicts passed in favor of the entertainment industry, and then cross reference that with the method by which judges are appointed/elected, and weather or not any of them took money from the entertainment industry in the form of campaign contributions in the case of elected judges.
I wonder if anyone else has done any research like that. I imagine Groklaw has probably played with the idea.