Overturning a series of decisions in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America, the Washington, D.C., court said copyright law did not allow the organization to issue subpoenas for the identity of file swappers on Internet service providers' networks.

"We are not unsympathetic either to the RIAA’s concern regarding the widespread infringement of its members' copyrights, or to the need for legal tools to protect those rights," the court wrote. "It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite (copyright law) in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry."

The decision did not address the legality of the lawsuits that have already been filed against hundreds of individual computer users.

The appeals courts decision comes in response to a string of ISP challenges to the recording industry's attempts to identify file swappers in order to sue them.

Beginning early last year, the RIAA had cited provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which it said allowed the industry group to issue subpoenas for the identities of ISP subscribers allegedly infringing copyrights over peer-to-peer networks.

Verizon Communications, the first ISP to receive several such subpoenas, challenged them immediately, saying they were unconstitutional. A lower court ruled in favor of the RIAA earlier this year, setting the stage for the hundreds of lawsuits subsequently filed. SBC Communications later filed a similar lawsuit against the process, also pending in Washington, D.C.

The appeals court did not address any issues of constitutionality or privacy in its decision Friday, saying only that Congress had not drafted the DMCA to apply to peer-to-peer networks.

Verizon welcomed the court's decision.

"Today's ruling is an important victory for Internet users and all consumers," Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch said in a statement. "The court has knocked down a dangerous procedure that threatens Americans' traditional legal guarantees and violates their constitutional rights."

Under the decision, the RIAA still would be able to seek the identity of file swappers, but would have to file individual "John Doe" lawsuits against the anonymous individuals in order to obtain the identities.

The RIAA was not yet available for comment.

Thanks to New.com

Well, duh!

It's about time the RIAA has to play by the same rules as everyone else. I'm glad the judges looked at it purely from that perspective, instead of letting the RIAA bring their unfounded (yes they are unfounded since no one has actually been PROVED guilty of copyright infringement) allegations of infringment to a case that is about due process.

It's not a victory for file downloaders, but a victory for the proper due process that our constitution states very clearly.

"The RIAA was not yet available for comment"

That's because someone has to find the smelling salts to revive them first

"That's because someone has to find the smelling salts to revive them first"

I think I may need some. I did not expect this to happen. Nice gift for Christmas though.

Check the previous thread. Carey Sue has made a comment finally

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?.

bhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaah

im still going to keep the research going....

welcome to oblivion big 5

we are still going to block and ban you from the majority of the internet.

hmmmm if they don't get the dmca re-written i wonder if baytsp is going to go under?

im sure that they invested alot of money form haveing there "cash cow" looks like mark might have to give up his race cars again lol

Well put airider. Good news indeed.

How does effect the lawsuits in the pieline?

dohcmark8,

Due to this ruling the burden is no longer on the ISP's to provide info about you just because the RIAA decides to issue a subpoena. Now the RIAA has to file a "no name" subpoena and do the investigations themselves to get the information, rather than just sit back and let it come to them. A judge is still not needed per se, but will probably end up becoming part of the process now that a "no name" subpoena is the RIAA's only recourse. In the end they can still find out who you are and eventually figure out some way to charge you, but it just became a lot harder from an information perspective and a lot more expensive from a legal perspective. Although the lawyers are probably laughing all the way to the bank since this just increases the amount they can charge.

Just as a side note, has anyone considered the reason lawyers contribute the most to political campaigns and why we keep getting poorly written, ambiugous, and bad laws is to ensure the lawyers keep their jobs and those big checks coming in?!? Just a thought about the whole process on my part.

This is not the BEST of news. It doesn't strike down the DMCA. The judges whimped out and avoided the constitutionality of the law altogether. What a bunch of weenies!!!

This goes to show why our legal system is failing so miserably. Because our Judges don't do the jobs they were paid to do.

But the problem is that they already have a lot of information on people and will continue on with the rest of the suits. Although, I do not see any positive outcome of these lawsuits. Absolutely pointless...

Oooooooooh, I'm educated now! I just hope, with all the mistakes they're making, that they don't come after me. I doubt it, but they have 5 unnamed people that used a different method of getting music. And that was most likely BitTorrent. And I use BitTorrent to get music and other things that I'm allowed to get. The only problem is that if they do come after me, I won't be able to defend myself due to lack of funds. What the hell do I do then?

Someone gave them WAY too much power.

INeedAlover,

Striking down the DMCA will probably fall on the Supreme Courts shoulders. All these appellate courts usually do is swat back and forth interpretations of existing law until no one can take it any more and the Supreme's get it.

In my opinion the appeals court did finally give some reasonable guidance about how the law should be read, rather than just keep spouting out the RIAA's line like the trial judge did. It's not a "change" in the law which I think the appeals court is right to say is congress' job, but rather a refined interpretation that strikes a more balanced approach to protecting civil liberties and privacy with due process. This is about the most you'll see out of an appeals court. Unfortunately!

What happens to the previous subpoenas if future ones filed this way are illegal?

For example, lets say someone settled with the RIAA like a few months ago. I suppose they are just shit out of luck.

SOL! Since they agreed to the terms of civil lawsuit. They might have some recourse, but it'll cost them more legal fees which I'm sure they just wanted to avoid in the first place.

BITCH SLAPPED!

message for cary "the boy named wish I could sue" sheman. your profits are really going to take a dive now that you'll have to pay for these lawsuits your self.

Word of warning: the RIAA can still go after people; it will simply be more expensive and time consuming.

Because it will be more expensive to pursue folks, the RIAA will probably start demanding a much higher settlement than the typical 2,000 - 7,000 dollar range - or may even pull out all the stops and sue for the max $150,000 per song - without settling at all!

I want it to go to the courts. Sure I feel sorry for the people who do get into court but it needs to be done in order to get some bad publicity going and the possibility that we may actually get a win which would completely screw the RIAA.

It doesn't mean any cases will go to a final decision. It just means settlement won't occur prior to the filing of the suit. Settlement might happen the day after a suit is filed. My feeling is that a defendant will be even more likely to settle now than before. After all, getting served with an actual lawsuit is much scarier than getting a notice of subpoena service.

This is such good news! I am on vacation in Mexico and popped into the internet cafe and I am so excited. Can´t wait to read the whole decision. Thanks for posting the news you guys!

Finally some good news, oh yeah, RIAA looks, like your getting a lump of coal for Christmass this year. ha ha ha ha

"The decision did not address the legality of the lawsuits that have already been filed against hundreds of individual computer users."

I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm not mistaken, illegally obtained evidence is only thrown out if it is obtained illegally by law enforcement agencies. Since the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency, I think they can still use the information they got from the ISPs to sue.

Please tell me I'm incorrect.

hahahahahahha!

Just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to getting away from this monopolistic collusion of thieves and liars, but was definitely sweet to hear on NPR.


~goingnova

jefry that's what the news article I read said
I assume the defendants would have to countersue but I don't know how good that'll do

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.

I will represent anyone who wants to sue for a refund on behalf of everyone.

undeath I would hope that anyone yet to be sued or has already paid can sue the RIAA for going against their Constitutional rights... I have my fingers crossed they will

Question...Does this mean I can download music again even though Verizon is not my ISP?

I still am not going to download or buy anything from them until I know this is gonna be permnant! I still say screw them suckers they can keep their crap and their cheap sounding mp3's

EEK I just had a thought.. what if those people who settled agreed not to sue the RIAA with their agreements

Very good article on CNET about potential next steps.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5130033.html

You can bet Monday's meeting at the riaa will be interesting.

leflaw you dogg!

Get enough people together and you got class action.

Let us know how it goes....

Few things, one how does this affect people who have been supeoned but have not yet settled? Can they strike back at the RIAA claiming unfair tatics? And imagine how this is going to change the law, with this in the law books, isn't it going to be harder for the RIAA to lobby for some other bullshit law to allow them to use the Nazi tatics they were using before?

Another battle in the war has been fought, lets keep up the boycott, letters, and e-mails.

mroop is right. A actual trial summoms is way scarier then a subpeona. Then again, maybe they will file a lawsuit against a congressman or something.

Could happen. Unlikely, but could happen. We can hope.

If I'm right, then everyone who's been sued can take a deep breath. What I mean is, the standing subpoenas can and should be found void, since they were obtained under what has now been ruled as unconstitutional means. Someone has to set a precedent though. I'm betting that if just ONE of the current subpoena'd folks would take it to court instead of settling, it would come out in discovery and pre-trial (at least that would be MY way of doin it). If it did go to court, and this was brought to light, the judge would have to throw out anything the RIAA got from their illegal acts, under the rules of discovery and due process. Correct me please if I'm wrong larry, but I'm under the impression that it doesn't matter WHO got the information (ie jefrystube comment), but if it was obtained illegally it has to be thrown out. That would take out the keystone in their case, and the person could put up a good defense to the accusations. Then, when (if?) they beat the riaa in court, they've got double jeopardy protection. Neat how all this fits into a neat little box when things roll right huh?
just my two cents
ttmmm

no, airrider, Ineed, and others.. The courts will MAYBE strike down the DMCA in the distant future. I'm not that patient. We need to educate, register folks, friends and family to the stupidity of the DMCA and elect new blood into congress IN THE NEXT 11 MONTHS!! That will block any veto overrides immediately.. and begin the repeal/correction process sooner than the courts could with the maze of appeals, etc. My question is.. are you willing to go to work??

ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

oops. I mean block any veto..

VICTORY!!!!!!! WE'VE BEATEN THE RIAA!

"This option has a possible downside for the RIAA, however. Currently, the trade association knows the identity of the people it names as defendants. By switching to a process in which anonymous people are sued, the RIAA runs the risk of making an embarrassing misstep--by suing a son or daughter of a record label executive or of a U.S. senator, for example. "

Cnet.... I really really want them to sue a famous person, or a son of the record label exec.