LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2003

ARSCLIST January 2003

Subject:

WP: Recording Firms Win Copyright Ruling

From:

Premise Checker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:03:44 -0600

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (112 lines)

Recording Firms Win Copyright Ruling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24577-2003Jan21?language=printer

   Recording Firms Win Copyright Ruling
   Judge Orders Verizon to Identify Internet Customer Who Used
   Music-File-Sharing Service

   By Jonathan Krim
   Washington Post Staff Writer
   Wednesday, January 22, 2003; Page E01

   An Internet service provider must turn over the identity of one of its
   customers suspected of illegally trading music files, a federal judge
   ruled yesterday, handing the recording industry a powerful new weapon
   in its efforts to crack down on what it considers digital piracy.

   In a closely watched test case of how much anonymity Internet users
   can expect, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the online
   division of Verizon Communications Inc. to give the Recording Industry
   Association of America (RIAA) the name of a Verizon customer who had
   downloaded as many as 600 songs a day using the popular Kazaa
   music-file-sharing service.

   If the decision survives a promised appeal, it means that people who
   use such file-swapping programs could be targeted for legal action by
   entertainment companies. Because file sharing is popular with
   teenagers, their parents also could be in the cross hairs if they are
   the official subscribers of online services that connect their homes
   to the Internet.

   The major labels have been waging fierce legal battles against
   file-sharing services, successfully shutting down the pioneering
   Napster Inc. and recently winning a ruling that the overseas-based
   Kazaa service could be sued in the United States. But online file
   sharing, which allows users to trade songs without paying for them,
   has persisted, costing the industry an estimated $5 billion in lost
   revenue last year worldwide.

   The Kazaa software has been downloaded more than 100 million times.
   Now the industry can zero in on individuals as well, legal experts
   said.

   "This will be a big club in the hands of the entertainment industry,"
   said Jonathan Band, a Washington lawyer who specializes in Internet
   law. "They will definitely be able to reach a class of users that they
   have not been able to reach until now."

   Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, hailed the decision.

   "The illegal distribution of music on the Internet is a serious issue
   for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners," he said in a
   statement. "Now that the court has ordered Verizon to live up to its
   obligation under the law, we look forward to contacting the account
   holder whose identity we were seeking so we can let them know that
   what they are doing is illegal."

   Sarah B. Deutsch, Verizon's associate general counsel, countered that
   the judge improperly interpreted the law and that the company would
   appeal.

   Internet service companies fear that if the decision stands, they will
   be deluged by subpoenas from the music industry demanding the
   identities of the tens of thousands of users, which will compromise
   their privacy and have a "chilling effect" on consumers and the online
   providers, she said.

   Verizon also argued that the subpoena process is unfair to users
   because it does not require judicial approval. Subpoenas can be issued
   by the clerk of any federal court.

   The case began last July, when the RIAA served Verizon with a subpoena
   for the user's name under a provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium
   Copyright Act (DMCA). The organization uses automated software to
   scour the Internet and identify file swappers but can identify them
   only by numeric Internet addresses on various networks. The RIAA also
   asked Verizon to terminate the user's service, which Verizon refused
   to do.

   Verizon said it opposes digital piracy but argued that under the law
   Internet service providers are required to provide such information
   only if the offending material is stored on its network -- if, for
   example, it provides Web hosting services -- and not if it is merely
   the conduit for data transmission. Typically, the offending files
   reside on users' computers, which they make publicly available over
   the file-sharing networks.

   But Bates ruled that the 1998 copyright act clearly specifies an
   ability and process for copyright holders to demand the identities of
   suspected infringers.

   "Verizon's assertions to the contrary are refuted by the structure and
   language of the DMCA," Bates wrote. "Verizon has provided no sound
   reason why Congress would enable a copyright owner to obtain
   identifying information from a service provider storing the infringing
   material on its system, but would not enable a copyright owner to
   obtain identifying information from a service provider transmitting
   the material over its system."

   That distinction is crucial to online providers. Providers often work
   with law enforcement agencies to identify lawbreakers but have been
   generally exempted from responsibility for the actions of their users
   in non-criminal areas such as libel.

   "We support the right of RIAA and other copyright owners to protect
   their intellectually property," said David Baker, head of public
   policy for online provider EarthLink. "But RIAA is misusing the DMCA
   as a sword instead of a shield."

   Some of the consumer groups that filed briefs in support of Verizon
   argued that the DMCA is unconstitutional because it restricts users'
   "fair use" rights to replay music and infringes on their privacy.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager