Comments on: Suing Filesharers Loses it's Appeal

Suing Filesharers Loses it's Appeal

BigPicnic — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:53:58 -0800

The DC Appeals court has overturned the previous decision that allowed the RIAA to subpoena user's names from internet providers. Could this mark the end of the recording industry's lawsuit assault?

By: BigPicnic

BigPicnic — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:55:46 -0800

Here's the more informative NY TImes article, but I went with the non-registration one above.

By: crush-onastick

crush-onastick — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:56:59 -0800

copyfight offers up the whole ruling (via PACER, but no id or payment required) wish they had gotten to the constitutional issues, though.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:08:26 -0800

This is important:

The issue is whether § 512(h) applies to an ISP acting only as a conduit for data transferred between two internet users, such as persons sending and receiving e-mail or, as in this case, sharing P2P files. Verizon contends § 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP that transmits infringing material but does not store any such material on its servers. The RIAA argues § 512(h) on its face authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to an ''[internet] service provider'' without regard to whether the ISP is acting as a conduit for user-directed communications. We conclude from both the terms of § 512(h) and the overall structure of § 512 that, as Verizon contends, a subpoena may be issued only to an ISP engaged in storing on its servers material that is infringing or the subject of infringing activity.

By: sudama

sudama — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:09:58 -0800

This just means the RIAA has to buy a bigger law.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:15:10 -0800

This is good news. The law as it was being interpreted previously, opened up everyone to frivolous or even malicious invasions of privacy. My only question is, can this ruling be overturned, or is this how things are gonna be, until ~~the RIAA buys~~ new laws are created?

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:23:25 -0800

I liked this quote: The court ... said that the RIAA's claim that Verizon was partly responsible for lost profits due to file trading "borders upon the silly." Oh yeah. In related news, the Dutch rule that P2P software is entirely legal.

By: crush-onastick

crush-onastick — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:26:19 -0800

blue stone-- it could go higher, but it's unlikely it will. however, the DC Circuit doesn't control the rest of the circuits. most likely scenario is a push to expand D C MA.

By: Hankins

Hankins — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:29:11 -0800

Nice one, sudama. Heh.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:33:42 -0800

Blue Stone, the Omaha story pretty much mangles the "silly" quote. It had nothing at all to do with profits. Here's the quote in context:

Finally, the RIAA argues the definition of ''[internet] service provider'' in § 512(k)(1)(B) makes § 512(h) applicable to an ISP regardless what function it performs with respect to infringing material – transmitting it per § 512(a), caching it per § 512(b), hosting it per § 512(c), or locating it per § 512(d). This argument borders upon the silly. The details of this argument need not burden the Federal Reporter, for the specific provisions of § 512(h), which we have just rehearsed, make clear that however broadly ''[internet] service provider'' is defined in § 512(k)(1)(B), a subpoena may issue to an ISP only under the prescribed conditions regarding notification.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:48:59 -0800

(nitpick: That wasn't a NYT article, it was an AP story on the NYT's site. Please folks, it's not hard.)

By: BigPicnic

BigPicnic — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:07:09 -0800

(Hopefully the AP wil forgive me. Also: In my title I meant its not it's.)

By: IPLawyer

IPLawyer — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:04:15 -0800

It is doubtful that either the full DC Circuit would grant rehearing en banc, or that the Supreme Court would take cert (if RIAA seeks it out at all). More likely, they will push for a different result in other courts (there are several pending) and try to force a circuit split. So the short answer is for now, RIAA's solution is legislation. (Mini brag: As one of the lawyers who actually represented Verizon on this, yay, us!)

By: mojohand

mojohand — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:32:04 -0800

IPLawyer: Well done you! But what would be the impact of "a circuit split" (which I'm guessing means the RIAA gets rulings more favorable to its argument from one or more other Federal Circuit Courts?) assuming the DCMA remains unchanged?

By: IPLawyer

IPLawyer — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:50:07 -0800

If a different circuit says its OK, they could try to continue to issue subpoenas only in those areas of the country. Technically, a DC Circuit opinion is only binding in DC (although it would be found to be majorly persuasive to other courts....).

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:35:28 -0800

Nope, not the end, just the beginning of a whole new round of lawsuits and rulings and other high falooting legal monkeyworks. I hope the RIAA bankrupts themselves because of this stupidity they continue to pursue. Has anyone done a study on the effect of the RIAA suing people on music purchases or on downloads?

By: FormlessOne

FormlessOne — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:45:01 -0800

Of course not, fenriq. That would detract from the RIAA's insistence that piracy, and solely piracy, is the prime cause of the RIAA's loss of revenue.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:55:52 -0800

Thanks to crush-onastick, and monju_bosatsu, for clarifications.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:11:05 -0800

Don't buy your kids music this Christmas.