meegannie
Blue Crack Addict
Verizon Ordered to Release Names
Fri April 25, 2003 06:35 AM ET
By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - A federal judge Thursday ordered the nation's largest phone company to identify the names of Internet customers suspected of using peer-to-peer networks to steal music in what is one of the critical tests of a 1998 copyright law.
In his order, federal district court Judge John Bates rejected arguments by Verizon Communications that it does not have to reveal the identity of two suspected copyright pirates to the Recording Industry Assn. of America. The RIAA won a right to their identity using special subpoena power that Congress granted copyright holders in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The law permits music companies to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. district court clerk's office, without a judge's signature required.
According to Bates' opinion, Verizon's contentions that the subpoena provision is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment failed to hold water. Verizon contends that the subpoena provision violates its customers' free speech rights because it would "pierce their anonymity." Bates said that while the Supreme Court has upheld speakers' rights to remain unnamed, Verizon's claim was outweighed by the harm an illegal activity was causing legitimate copyright holders.
"The recording industry has suffered substantial losses due to Internet piracy," Bates wrote. "Whatever marginal impact the DMCA subpoena authority may have on the expressive or anonymity rights of Internet users then is vastly outweighed by the extent of copyright infringement over the Internet through peer-to-peer file sharing, which is the legitimate sweep of the (subpoena power)."
The latest ruling means consumers using dozens of popular peer-to-peer programs can more easily be identified and tracked by copyright owners, resulting in warning letters, civil lawsuits or even criminal prosecution.
"If users of pirate peer-to-peer sites don't want to be identified, they should not break the law by illegally distributing music," RIAA president Cary Sherman said.
Verizon's chief attorney on the case contends that the ruling could be a disaster for Internet users.
"What (the judge) has done is shred the privacy, safety and due process rights of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Internet subscribers," said Sarah Deutsch, Verizon vp and assistant general counsel. "Essentially the ruling goes far beyond the legitimate interests of copyright holders."
Deutsch said the company planned to tell the federal appellate court here that it would appeal the case and ask for a stay on Bates' order until the higher court ruled. Bates gave the company 14 days to ask for an appeal.
Verizon and other critics of the law have argued that allowing the subpoena authority to stand would open the door to criminals who want an easy avenue to get people's identity.
"Anyone will be able to file a one-page form and get identifying information" that could be used by cyber stalkers and others bent on doing evil, Deutsch argued.
Bates, however, rejected those contentions.
"There is nothing in the record to indicate that the ... subpoena authority has been used for stalking or other fraudulent purposes," the judge wrote.
Bates dismissed arguments that the legal debate posed any "grave or formidable constitutional problem" and said that the law "hardly amounts to a real or substantial threat to protected expression."
While Verizon was among the companies that cut a deal with the recording industry and other copyright holders in 1998 that set up the subpoena process, Deutsch said it was never envisioned to be used the way the RIAA is using it.
"There was no P-to-P file sharing" at the time, she said. "Now they have a new business problem, and they are expanding this new subpoena process in a novel way to extend these powers."
But Sherman said the decision was the correct one and is a warning to people who are willfully violating copyright laws.
"Today's decision makes clear that these individuals cannot rely on their Internet service providers to shield them from accountability," he said.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Fri April 25, 2003 06:35 AM ET
By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - A federal judge Thursday ordered the nation's largest phone company to identify the names of Internet customers suspected of using peer-to-peer networks to steal music in what is one of the critical tests of a 1998 copyright law.
In his order, federal district court Judge John Bates rejected arguments by Verizon Communications that it does not have to reveal the identity of two suspected copyright pirates to the Recording Industry Assn. of America. The RIAA won a right to their identity using special subpoena power that Congress granted copyright holders in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The law permits music companies to force Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. district court clerk's office, without a judge's signature required.
According to Bates' opinion, Verizon's contentions that the subpoena provision is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment failed to hold water. Verizon contends that the subpoena provision violates its customers' free speech rights because it would "pierce their anonymity." Bates said that while the Supreme Court has upheld speakers' rights to remain unnamed, Verizon's claim was outweighed by the harm an illegal activity was causing legitimate copyright holders.
"The recording industry has suffered substantial losses due to Internet piracy," Bates wrote. "Whatever marginal impact the DMCA subpoena authority may have on the expressive or anonymity rights of Internet users then is vastly outweighed by the extent of copyright infringement over the Internet through peer-to-peer file sharing, which is the legitimate sweep of the (subpoena power)."
The latest ruling means consumers using dozens of popular peer-to-peer programs can more easily be identified and tracked by copyright owners, resulting in warning letters, civil lawsuits or even criminal prosecution.
"If users of pirate peer-to-peer sites don't want to be identified, they should not break the law by illegally distributing music," RIAA president Cary Sherman said.
Verizon's chief attorney on the case contends that the ruling could be a disaster for Internet users.
"What (the judge) has done is shred the privacy, safety and due process rights of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Internet subscribers," said Sarah Deutsch, Verizon vp and assistant general counsel. "Essentially the ruling goes far beyond the legitimate interests of copyright holders."
Deutsch said the company planned to tell the federal appellate court here that it would appeal the case and ask for a stay on Bates' order until the higher court ruled. Bates gave the company 14 days to ask for an appeal.
Verizon and other critics of the law have argued that allowing the subpoena authority to stand would open the door to criminals who want an easy avenue to get people's identity.
"Anyone will be able to file a one-page form and get identifying information" that could be used by cyber stalkers and others bent on doing evil, Deutsch argued.
Bates, however, rejected those contentions.
"There is nothing in the record to indicate that the ... subpoena authority has been used for stalking or other fraudulent purposes," the judge wrote.
Bates dismissed arguments that the legal debate posed any "grave or formidable constitutional problem" and said that the law "hardly amounts to a real or substantial threat to protected expression."
While Verizon was among the companies that cut a deal with the recording industry and other copyright holders in 1998 that set up the subpoena process, Deutsch said it was never envisioned to be used the way the RIAA is using it.
"There was no P-to-P file sharing" at the time, she said. "Now they have a new business problem, and they are expanding this new subpoena process in a novel way to extend these powers."
But Sherman said the decision was the correct one and is a warning to people who are willfully violating copyright laws.
"Today's decision makes clear that these individuals cannot rely on their Internet service providers to shield them from accountability," he said.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
