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]'"

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.

Charter

[mboverload]

Charter is owned by Paul Allen, maybe this had something to do with it. Alen has loads of cash to back Charter up, he might of even been the person to say "no"

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...

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.

The RIAA/MPAA doesn't need to attack Charter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Charter does a great job preventing piracy themselves by outsourcing their newsgroups to Supernews and capping it at 2 connections @ 128kbps each.

Re:This is even more complex....

[triticale]

The only way you lost thousands of dollars is if, in fact, every single individual who obtained your material would have, under other circumstances paid for it, which is a simplistic assumption. When the record company makes such claims sales figures suggest they know they are lying. Can you demonstrate, for example, that an author loses money when a book is checked out of the library?

What the RIAA is doing thru these lawsuits is attempting to maintain an obsolete business model and an obsolete star system. If they had been less stupid, they would have seen this coming and built a new business model years ago instead.

As for residual royalties, you might consider the example of science fiction - fantasy author Mercedes Lackey. A couple of years ago, she agreed to let her publisher [baen.com] make a couple of her works available for free download. Her very next royalty check, from her other publisher, for the oldest series in her backlist, was three times what it had been consistantly for the previous ten years. We're not talking bar tab here, unless you are buying rounds for the house. She used the check to buy a nail gun, an air compressor to power it, and high grade lumber to build a wall of bookshelves - mid to high three figures.

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.