http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHHPHO0.html

Record Industry May Not Subpoena Providers

Dec 19, 10:44 AM (ET)

By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by the recording industry to compel the nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers accused of illegally distributing music online.

In a substantial setback for the industry's controversial anti-piracy campaign, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a ruling by the trial judge to enforce a copyright subpoena.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers. Since then, Verizon has identified dozens of its other subscribers to music industry lawyers.

The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.

Verizon had challenged the constitutionality of the subpoenas under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The law, passed years before downloading music over peer-to-peer Internet services became popular, compels Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office. A judge's signature is not required. Critics contend judges ought to be more directly involved.

Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.

In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."

Crap. You beat me to it, dude. But...

SCORE! The RIAA's going down! *thump*

"The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network."

Wish I could shake hands with the person that coined the "borders on the silly phrase".

scayf...we had a BUNCH of submissions on the same topic, I had to post the first one..lol..he beat even me..I had to deny posting my own submit on it...lol...

merry fuckin' christmas, RIAA!

>

this is a glorious day for us all but the fight is still not over. down with the RIAA, the DMCA, and the orrin hatch led beaureaucrats that are against the way of the p2p nets. i know that cary sue flipped when the appeals courts stated that one fo their arguments " borders upon the silly" (LOL). this is going to open a can fo worms so to speak in regarding the fellow downloaders who were sued in the past. down with the RIAA and their shenanigans once and for all.

The RIAA will go back to Congress to get this "fixed", for sure...

Score one for the good guys.


DOWN WITH THE RIAA!

I can't wait to see what the RIAA says about this. So what does this mean for all those people who were or are targets?

I have got to pass this on to the cria...quick! finally some sense to all this mess! ~~pepe~~

Feed 'em fish!!

Frig' the R.I.(double gay)A.A.!!!!!!!!!!

whooo hooo this made my day, the RIAA is going down!!!!!

.. I also read that the courts are heavily critizing Bush's ability to detain prisoners without due process.. Hmmm is there an outbreak of reason goin on???

tds67.. welcome, and Congress will change.. know why? We gonna head 'em off at the BALLOT BOX this year??? You registered and ready. We could change one third of congress in the next 11 months. You folks up for the challenge. Howski.. what is this double gay stuff.. remember you are on a music site..

WOOOOHOOOOOOOOO, pops open the champagne. What a perfect way to start the new year.

In the CNN.com version of the story online ...it says
"But in a strongly worded ruling, the appeals court sided with Verizon, saying a 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit.

"In sum, we agree with Verizon that (the law) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote.

Neither Verizon nor the RIAA was immediately available for comment."

In a sense this will make the RIAA's lawsuits more expensive or they won't be able to file lawsuits at all.

Even though it was a win for file sharers, you will still have ISP's like Comcast who will not be hesitent to give out someone's personal information to the RIAA. As you seen from the list of the RIAA subpoena's, Comcast was at the top of the list for lawsuits.

Hey, RIAA. If you think that this ruling is going to encourage me to get rid of the baseball bat next to my computer . . . think again.

The courts said they used unconstitutional tatics to get what they want. So it won't be that easy for them.. if it's unconstitutional how they gonna "fix" that?

Snoopy dance snoopy dance snoopy dance!!!!!!!!!!!

I almost caused a sig alert on the 118 this morning on the way to work when the news came over the radio!!! Celebrate well my friends this weekend, the battle has now only truely begun!

*waves hands in the air like he just dont care*

If the RIAA subpoena method has been illegal all along, shouldn't they be required to reimburse all of their previous victims uncovered through this method? (i.e. all the twelve year old girls, senior citizens who don't even own computers, and people who were entirely out of the country when the supposed downloading went on who the RIAA has already coerced into "settlement").

YES! YES! YES! YEEEEESSSSSSSS!

Cool

i agree with bluerhythm. I think that the people who settled with the RIAA over this bullshit should not have to pay anything or get a refund of what they already paid up.

Or better yet . . . why don't they sue their ass!!!!!

"This essentially removes all grounds upon which the RIAA has currently built its ability to obtain customer information and further calls into question the almost 400 lawsuits they've filed with the information they've already received."

Class-action anyone ?

This is the victory we've been waiting for! It'll take a little while to find out what the long-term ramifications of the illegality of these subpoenas mean. Leflaw, any thoughts on what might happen to the previously settled lawsuits? Might all the settlements and lawsuits from such subpoenas in the past get rescinded?

Words can hardly describe my feelings of relief and joy. This is the best Christmas present I think any of us will receive.

w00t

im still not backing down till there all locked by the peerguardian database kats.

soon they will no longs have access to 50 to 75% of the internet lol

This is the first post I've ever made to this forum actually being happy about something!

Woo Hoo!! RIAA can still kiss my ass.

As for the people who settled or are in litigation b/c of the subpoenas, I hope every last one of them sues the pants of the RIAA. I'm willing to contribute $$ just to help their legal effort. It's time to kill the RIAA and piss on their graves.

Class action indeed!

Anyone notice Kazaa numbers going up ?

Justice is done.

agreed those already sued should sue in return and get their money back

I am glad that they will have to commit to a lawsuit BEFORE they ask for a subpoena. Now they can't cherry-pick their targets. I would love to see them unknowingly bring a lawsuit up against a congressman or senator, or even better a mobster.

I hope this discourages the Canadian Recording industry from harassing file sharers here.

Legal experts said the appeals ruling probably would not affect the 382 civil lawsuits the recording industry already has filed since it announced its campaign nearly six months ago.

I just found this on the fox news website. that means the lawsuits can go ahead

Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."

Same article. what a crock Carey

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106223,00.html

Date: December 19, 2003 @ 12:57 PM
Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."


Yeah, FIRST YOU'll HAVE TO FIND THEM!

And I really think Verizon is owed a great deal of gratitude to have had the guts and funds to go up against them...anyone there who can, go with Verizon, and everyone else, write them a big thankyou letter! ~~pepe~~

"unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."

Or

"We can no longer hand-pick pre-teens, senior citizens and low income families as targets that can't fight back and have no choice but to settle outside of litigation."

uhhh...shouldn't Sherman have said "alleged illegal file sharers"?
or has he eliminated the presumption of innocence from courts in his little mind?
~Code

seems like the RIAA extortion (under Hobbs Act definiton) will be hampered by the Court.

Does this ruling also make it illegal for ISP's to grant the RIAA information about cutsomers or can the ISP's still willingly hand them over?.

What are the chances of Boycott-RIAA.com helping to fund lawsuits for those who have already settled?

Any bets on how long new legislation plugging this gap will take to be submitted?

"Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.

In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."

Can someone interpret this for me please? Does this mean the judge disagreed with Verizon, and believes that Verizon IS in fact responsible for individual content on private PC's? Or does the judge believe Verizon, as a pass through, is still responsible for what passes through?

Ha ha Riaa ! I fart in your general direction !

I can see clearly now, the reign is gone!

Although this is very good news, let's not all get excited. Why? Because the judges that ruled avoided the constitutionality of the DMCA completely by ruling this way. And we wonder why our legal system is such a mess. It's because our Judges that make decisions have no BALLS at all!! This ruling is a pathetic cop-out to avoid the real issue, the violation of constitutional rights.

Atlas -- I think that the judge was saying that Verizon can't shield their subscribers from lawsuits just because they didn't have a web site up.

What this means is that the extortion stops. You can't settle with someone out of court if you don't know who they are.

Remember, less than 2 percent of federal civil cases ever go to trial. The RIAA has been banking on this factor. But now, they have to actually file a lawsuit and prepare to try it before they ever find out who the "victim" is or what their defense is.

And it really doesn't matter if Congress screws with the law again. Eventually, it is up to the courts, who can knock the law right back down again if it is unconstitutional.

I'd say that "borders on the silly" was a pretty big slap in the face for the RIAA. But at least now we can stop all the comparisons to things like suing the Post Office for the content of the mail they deliver.

Ineedalover The case wasn't to determine the constitutionality of the law. the judges can only rule on the argument put before them. Verizon was appealing the wongful use of the law and not weather the law itself was unconstitutional

In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."

Doesn't make sense to me either - someone explain what this trial judge is on about?

Thx george - posted between refreshes

What this means is that the RIAA is not going to settle for 3K anymore, now they will settle for 6K or 10K. I did a quick reading of the opinion and it seems on the money, but the upshot is that the file sharers will bear the burden of this decision.

Thanks GdZ

for once you and I agree mroop but the point is is will be a lot harder for them to file those suits and they won't be as likely to go issuing thousands of supoenas at a time. Further, when they do ask for larger settlements to cover their expenses the court of public opinion is really going to bear down on them. Most people thought it was stupid to sue a 12 year old but since they settled for a relatively small amount of money they forgot about it pretty quick How will people see them when they ask for a 10K or 20K settlement from the next 12 year old?

In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."


I'm not a lawyer but it appears to me that the judge is saying that even though Verizon was technically right it was a wrong move from a corporate policy standpoint. The Judge appears to be implying that this would open up loopholes in the law that would hamper congress's attempt to deal with the "Piracy" issue.

"Most people thought it was stupid to sue a 12 year old but since they settled for a relatively small amount of money they forgot about it pretty quick How will people see them when they ask for a 10K or 20K settlement from the next 12 year old?"

My opinion is that you are overestimating the importance of the opinion of the general public and their interest in this issue as well. I think they get outraged for 5 minutes and then go back to watching the Paris Hilton TV show.

"I'm not a lawyer but it appears to me that the judge is saying that even though Verizon was technically right"

In your quote the judge did not say anything about Verizon being "technically right". If he said they were technically right then he would most likely be obliged to rule in their favor.

he did rule in their favor as you know and I never said that the judge said that. it's called an interpritation.

I believe he was making an opinion about verizon's actions. by saying that verizons interpritaion made little sense from a policy stand point... it sounded like he was implying their interpritation of the law , though technically correct, made it possible to hinder efforts to fight "piracy" and therefore bad business sense.

It's just my view and it's as good as yours unless the Judge himself clarifys it. So save your editorial comments on my posts and confine them to the article. I'd appreciate it

The interpretation is about what computer systems the ISP must turn over information on. Remember, the DMCA was a 98 law. Thats pre-napster. At the time internet piracy was through usenet, ISP webservers and FTP dumps. Consumer broadband was almost non-existant. It was never intended as a way to reveal the user of an IP address, only the other of a website or similar service. This ruling just points that out.

good point goldnpi, thanks

"It's just my view and it's as good as yours unless the Judge himself clarifys it. So save your editorial comments on my posts and confine them to the article."

Sorry, but you're wrong. The judge is saying that the section in question is open to interpretation and therefore he is going to interpret that section to further the goals that he believes Congress is seeking to implement. If the judge believed that Verizon was technically correct then he would have no choice but to rule in favor of Verizon.

I don't give a damn if I'm wrong or not. just leave your comments about me or my posts out of it.

I would of loved to see Cary-Sue's face when he heard this haha.

The "trial judge" was the judge being overridden here by this appeal. The trial judge mentioned that Verizon's arguments didn't make sense from a "policy standpoint" and ordered them to comply with the court clerk-issued subpoenaes.

This appeal Verizon won was based upon a review of LAW, not on "abuse of discretion," which most appeals are based on. In essense, Verizon said the trial judge didn't know what he was talking about. AND WON.

The ruling reads well and is truly a stunning victory. I sent Verizon a message at an email address provided on their news release, and received this response:
--------------------

David -- You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to write to us. This is a great decision for Internet users and all consumers. Enjoy the holidays. M.

---- What I sent her ----
To: Maureen Flanagan/EMPL/NY/Verizon@VZNotes

From: "David C. Atkins, Jr."


Subject: Thank you for fighting the RIAA

12/19/2003 04:20 PM

Your victory proves your mettle as a company determined to keep their customers' best interests primary.

Grey sky thank you so much. that makes more sense to me. I read it as if the statement was from todays decision and was trying to figure it out. thank you so much for catching my mistake

CNN has been reporting this as a victory for file sharers, all afternoon. The appeal found in favor of Verizon, NOT the RIAA. And we have every right to be pleased and celebrate. And I know lots of gay people download, so don't bash them here. Let's be kind goombahs.

All it takes to make a change is one person. One person, trying, and then because of that, another person changing for the better. The only way to change the world is to begin with one person. One will become two, which will become three, and so on. That’s the only way to affect a major change. We can all do this at the ballot box. Pass the word, get involved...seek out candidates that will fight for us...not huge corporations or lobby groups that represent them. Write members of congress....www.congress.org is a good place to start. Check out your congressional members BIO there and check out their PAC contributions! Especially Orin hatch! You'll be amazed at what you find. This is how we begin to get them out of office and win this battle, which is still not quite over yet. This is a big win for us, but we all need to head the RIAA off at the pass.....and that pass is congress.

"The judge is saying that the section in question is open to interpretation"

In any event, not only is the statute clear (albeit complex), the legislative history of the DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works.

The judge says the section IS clear.

"It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture"

And that it is not his job to interpret it any differently than it is written.

George, If only more judges thought that way when interpreting the law

If you're happy and you know it download a song! (but no RIAA artists, they suck)

Don't be too excited. This decision can make things worse, as well as better.
One one hand, this makes a great stepping stone for the fight to share files without fear of persecution. Courts and Lawyers will start having to look at rulings and current laws more closely, maybe even using a little common sense.
On the other hand, this may force the RIAA and associated groups to rethink and redirect their stategy and possibly find a new avenue for their "digital network cleansing". The possiblity exsists that they could come out of this stronger (and definately with a score to settle).
While a lot of people think this gives them free reign to share their entire MP3 collection now, that could be playing right into the RIAA's hand. While they did get a setback, they are still continuing to collect data on file-sharers, and now they will end up with new targets who are ignorant to the big picture.
The network I associate with has gained over 200,000 users this weekend and I can find almost any file imaginable, in duplicate. You have to admit that it makes a very tempting target for the RIAA.

Best news I heard all day

Get Cary Sue some Depends . . . he's just shit his pants . . . HA HA HA

"The judge says the section IS clear."

You are quoting the appellate judge. Compmore was quoting the trial judge and I was explaining what the trial judge meant.

Of course the opinion of the trial judge does not mean a whole lot at this point. : )

It's marvelous, fantastic. I hardly expected a Christmas gift this good.

:-:~ Phantom