From http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_10.php#001991



October 12, 2004

In File-Sharing Witchhunts, RIAA Is Foiled Again

Washington, DC - Today, the Supreme Court denied a request by the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) to hear its appeal of a lower court
decision that Internet service providers (ISPs) do not have to hand over
the names of people suspected of copyright infringement.

The case grows out of an incident in which the RIAA used a controversial
subpoena provision under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
to demand that Verizon Internet Services reveal the identity of a Verizon
subscriber who allegedly used KaZaA peer-to-peer software to share
copyrighted music online. Verizon refused to divulge the subscriber's
identity, claiming that the provision didn't cover alleged
copyright-infringing material that resides on an individual's computer,
only material that resides on an ISP's server.

After the District Court rejected Verizon's interpretation of the DMCA
subpoena provision, Verizon appealed. The Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) led a coalition of public interest groups and ISPs who filed
friend-of-the court briefs in support of Verizon, arguing that RIAA's
subpoenas failed to respect the privacy and First Amendment rights of
Internet users. The DC Circuit Court found the subpoenas were not
authorized by the DMCA. It granted Verizon's request to quash a second
subpoena it had received in the meantime, and said that the ISP would not
have to hand over information requested in the first.

But the RIAA didn't give up. First, it requested a rehearing in the DC
Circuit court, but was denied. And finally, it appealed to the Supreme
Court.

"The Supreme Court's refusal to take the case leaves the DC Circuit's
well-reasoned opinion as law: The DMCA doesn't give the RIAA a blank
fishing license to issue subpoenas and invade Internet users' privacy,"
said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer.

High Court Won't Hear Music Sharing Case

Tue Oct 12,10:30 AM ET


By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday sidestepped a dispute over whether Internet providers can be forced to identify subscribers illegally swapping music and movies online.



The subject, however, may be back at the court soon.

The Bush administration agrees with recording and movie companies which want to use a 1998 law to get information about Internet users, but the administration also had encouraged the Supreme Court to wait to settle the issue.

The recording industry had sought court intervention now, arguing that more than 2.6 billion music files are illegally downloaded each month and that the law is needed to identify culprits.

The copyright law was written before file-swapping was common, and an appeals court said it could not be used to get information about people who share copyrighted files.

"That is crippling the private copyright enforcement that Congress envisioned as a bulwark against Internet lawlessness, and allowing Internet piracy to metastasize," justices were told in a filing by Washington attorney Donald Verrilli, who represents the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites).

"Copyright owners cannot fight back unless they know who the infringers are," he said.

Lawyers for Verizon Communications Inc., which tried to keep private names and addresses of subscribers, disputed that that the industry has been deterred in going after people who trade copyrighted works by computer.

More than 3,000 alleged infringers have been sued since the appeals court's decision 10 months ago, Verizon lawyer John Thorne said. Those civil suits identify defendants as "John Doe," then seek court permission to get their names.

He warned justices that courts could be swamped with tens of thousands of disputed subpoena enforcement proceedings if it sided with the recording industry.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites) compels Internet providers to turn over the names of people suspected of operating pirate Web sites upon subpoena from any federal court clerk's office.

The appeals court had said it was up to Congress, not courts, to expand the 1998 law to cover popular file-sharing networks.

Movie studios and music labels have been aggressively pursuing copyright infringers. Last week, they filed a Supreme Court appeal that seeks to hold two Internet file-sharing services — Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. — responsible for their customers' online swapping of copyrighted songs and movies.

Other cases are pending in lower courts that could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to look at the copyright law, including a dispute involving St. Louis-based cable provider Charter Communications.

The cases are Verizon Internet Services v. Recording Industry Association of America, 03-1722, and Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services, 03-1579.

"The appeals court had said it was up to Congress, not courts, to expand the 1998 law to cover popular file-sharing networks."

Yeah I guess that explains why we've seen so much legislation about P2P networks lately, doesn't it?

Lets see if they don't throw out another blanket round of lawsuits here... they really hate losing...

The RIAA's position is, if the law can't be used to further our interest and Agenda, buy some new laws.

Turn up the Lobby effort, theres politicians out there, who can't wait to be included in our largess, lossen the purse strings and buy what you need

"The Bush administration agrees with recording and movie companies"

I haven't seen that printed anywhere before, although it would be more convincing if an actual person was quoted.

Oppose the PDEA copyright bill, or the RIAA will get the privacy invading campaign back even worse if it goes through!!!! So, we must ensure that the bill is opposed as it has gone frighteningly too far before it's too late and passes are our rights are trampled and the whole public is criminalized and a public outrage happens!!!! Does anyone know how much farther the PDEA and other related bills have to go before they become a law and how aware many of the members in congress who oppose it are so it can be struck down???

Hunting witches in the month of October can get you turned into a toad. Ask Cary.

haha

Good riddence to bad rubbish -- these RIAA lawsuits were bordering on illegal from the beginning, and this settles it -- they are illegal. In fact, at this point, they are more illegal than the charges that they are suing over; they have not won a single one of these illegal lawsuits.

I actually admire Verizon for standing up against them. I can imagine that ever record company executive is so angry. No ISP will cooperate with them now.

It usually takes one to stand up to the bully, and Verizon did it. Good for them. Each win is another crack in the armor of the RIAA.

What about each song downloaded?

If that's the case, then the RIAA doesn't have any armor, which they don't. They think nobody can stop them, which is odd since they can't stop anybody else.

Here are two RIAA unspoken, unwritten mottoes:
"If we can't win often enough by playing by the rules, get the rules changed."
"If existing laws are inadequate to further our interests and agenda, buy some new laws."

They're cheaters in the true sense of the word, since they play unfairly. But they surely do cry foul loudly when someone ELSE wants to deny THEM getting tribute on THEIR rights (their so-called 'property rights').
I say, let them and their music rot in a place that's never cool...

Yep Demand... let them and their music rot RIGHT ON THE STORE SHELVES!!!

Boycott them... don't buy ANY RIAA CD's.

ANY DAMMIT!!!

Thr RIAA uses the same old speech about loosing profits to P2P and so forth. Its getting tired and I think the courts are tired of hearing this. The RIAA only has statistics and I think the courts want to see more evidence than this.