http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3758771/

RIAA efforts to ID music swappers nixed

Internet providers don't have to turn over subscriber information

The Associated Press
Updated: 3:21 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2003

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday the recording industry
can’t force Internet providers to identify subscribers swapping music
online, dramatically setting back the industry’s anti-piracy campaign.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia overturned a trial judge’s decision to enforce copyright
subpoenas used by the recording industry. The subpoena power was
established by a law passed before the explosive growth of swapping
music online.

“It’s an incredible ruling, a blow for the little guy,” said Bob Barnes,
a grandfather in Fresno, Calif., who was targeted by one of the earliest
subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America but isn’t
among the hundreds who have been sued so far.

The ruling does not make it legal to distribute copyrighted music over
the Internet, but it removes one of the most effective tools used by the
recording industry to track such activity and sue downloaders.

The appeals court said the 1998 copyright law doesn’t cover popular
file-sharing networks used by tens of millions of Americans to download
songs. The law “betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users
might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works,”
the court wrote.

The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry,
noting “stakes are large.” But the judges said it was not the role of
courts to rewrite the 1998 law, “no matter how damaging that development
has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture
and software industries.”

Sen. Norm Coleman, who has criticized the use of such subpoenas,
predicted that any efforts to broaden the 1998 law would “face some
serious obstacles” in the Senate.
“We clearly have to do a better job of getting law and technology and
ethics into better sync,” said Coleman, R-Minn.

Current lawsuits will still go forward
Legal experts said the appeals ruling probably will not affect the 382
civil lawsuits the recording industry already filed since it announced
its campaign nearly six months ago. It also was not expected to affect
financial settlements with at least 220 computer users who agreed to pay
penalties from $2,500 to $7,500 each.

But it will make identifying defendants for future lawsuits much more
difficult and expensive. The ruling forces the recording industry to
file civil lawsuits against “John Doe” defendants, based on their
Internet addresses, then work through the courts to learn their names.

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.”

Sherman promised to “continue to defend our rights online on behalf of
artists, songwriters and countless others involved in bringing music to
the public.”

Earlier this week, the recording industry sent letters to the 50 largest
U.S. Internet providers asking them to forward written warnings in the
future to subscribers caught swapping music.
Details were still being worked out, but if Internet providers agree,
subscribers who swap even modest collections of music online could
receive the ominous warnings.

The letters demanding an end to the practice would be forwarded without
revealing subscriber identities to music lawyers. The warnings would be
mailed directly to Internet account holders — potentially alerting
parents or grandparents about illegal downloading in their households
they might not know about.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates had approved use of the disputed
subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and
addresses for at least four subscribers. Since then, Verizon has
identified scores of its other subscribers under subpoena by the music
industry, and some of them have been sued.

'Important victory for all Internet users'
Verizon’s lawyer, Sarah Deutsch, called the ruling “an important victory
for all Internet users and all consumers.” She said the music industry
should be required to file traditional civil lawsuits — which are more
expensive and time-consuming — to prosecute downloaders.

“Consumers’ rights cannot be trampled upon in the quest to enforce your
copyright,” Deutsch said.

The appeals court said one argument by the recording industry “borders
upon the silly” — the trade group’s claim that Verizon was responsible
for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act compels Internet providers to turn
over the names of people suspected of operating pirate Web sites upon
subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk’s office.

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.

© 2003 The Associated Press.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}