ISP's don't have to identify downloaders' IDs

[janswizard]

Although downloading songs would still be considered "illegal" by the recording industry, a judge rules that ISP's do not have to identify people who are downloading.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106223,00.html

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by the recording industry to compel the nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers accused of illegally distributing music online.



In a substantial setback for the industry's controversial anti-piracy campaign, the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (search) overturned a ruling by the trial judge to enforce a copyright subpoena.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates (search) had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon Communications Inc. to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers. Since then, Verizon has identified dozens of its other subscribers to music industry lawyers.

The appeals court said one of the arguments by the Recording Industry Association of America (search) "borders upon the silly," rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.

Verizon had challenged the constitutionality of the subpoenas under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (search).

The law, passed years before downloading music over peer-to-peer Internet services became popular, compels Internet providers to turn over the names of suspected pirates upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office. A judge's signature is not required. Critics contend judges ought to be more directly involved.

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.

In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."

[Lindaloo]

Hmmmm.... this is good news.

[CaptinCrunch]

Kazaa here I come

[Lindaloo]

I miss Napster. You have to pay for Kazaa.

[CaptinCrunch]

I miss Napster. You have to pay for Kazaa.

I don't pay for Kazaa Lite,

[GalvestonDuck]

I tried Grokster, which *ahem* someone here recommended. Then I got attacked by the same darn spyware that I had one other time. I've used Adaware and Spybot S&D to clean it all off. But now, for some darn reason, my DSL browser is slower than when I used a 14.4 kbs modem for dial-up.

Guess I'll wait til I return to figure out what's up.

[coriolis]

an ISP could wimp out amd still choose to disclose the ID's

[OtherHD]

I'm not paying for Kazaa Lite... :-?

[Derek Ortt]

Well,

its great to see copyright laws are again not enforced. What is so hard with the concept that if one breaks the law by downloading the music, you get busted?

[OtherHD]

Well if the RIAA wants to bust my *** for downloading music, then let them. As long as I am able to listen to my songs in my jail cell, it's okay.

[Lindaloo]

I have a great fear of going to jail. lol.