Verizon argued that the privacy and safety of its customers would be compromised if the subpoenas were not issued by judges, who first review their validity. The company also argued that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits Internet providers from being held responsible for what moves across their networks.
The law, the company said, only requires network owners to remove illegal material from their central computers. When consumers use file-sharing, or peer-to-peer, services, the songs they trade reside on their personal computers.
_____On The Web_____
•
Ruling: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Decision on RIAA vs. Verizon (Dec 19, 2003)
|
| |
_____Related Coverage_____
•
Verizon, Record Companies Duel Over 'Net Piracy (washingtonpost.com, Sep 16, 2003)
•
File-Sharing Companies Offer to Pay Girl's Settlement (The Washington Post, Sep 11, 2003)
•
RIAA Ties Child Porn to File-Sharing Sites (washingtonpost.com, Sep 10, 2003)
•
RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets (The Washington Post, Sep 10, 2003)
•
Music Industry Sues Online Song Swappers (The Washington Post, Sep 9, 2003)
•
New RIAA Chief Seeks a Hit Single (washingtonpost.com, Sep 5, 2003)
|
| |
Do You Download?
Note: This is an unscientific survey of washingtonpost.com readers.
| | |
|
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed unanimously.
"Verizon cannot remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers," said the ruling, written by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.
Perhaps more damaging for the recording industry, and for the movie and software industries, whose works also are traded online, the court declared firmly that the law was not designed to account for file-sharing technology. It is up to Congress to fix that if it chooses, the court ruled.
"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," Ginsburg wrote. "It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens . . . the motion picture and software industries."
Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA and a former Verizon lawyer, said his organization has not decided if it will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court or ask Congress to change the DMCA. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a musician, said he would push Congress to streamline the subpoena process.
Sherman said his group would file a first wave of "John Doe" lawsuits in January. Such suits are filed when the identity of the defendant is unknown. If a judge deems the suits valid, subpoenas to get the names and addresses of those using file-sharing software would be issued to Internet service providers, which have vowed to honor them.
"We think they can have the same deterrent by following the standard legal process," said Sarah B. Deutsch, Verizon's associate general counsel. "They wanted to have an expedited process, even if it trampled on user privacy and safety."
Less certain is the fate of an unknown number of people whose names already have been turned over to the RIAA by Internet service providers. The RIAA has declined to say how many subpoenas it served; Verizon estimates it at about 4,000.
