RIAA Can NOT Subpoena ISPs for user's info

[idkew]

Linky

Judge: RIAA can't subpoena file-trader information
By Grant Gross, IDG News Service
December 19, 2003 3:00 pm ET


The Recording Industry Association of America Inc. (RIAA) does not have the authority under U.S. law to subpoena the names of alleged peer-to-peer file traders from ISPs (Internet service providers), a federal appellate court ruled Friday.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a lower court's decision allowing the RIAA to file subpoenas asking Verizon Internet Services Inc. to turn over the names of suspected copyright infringers without the RIAA having to file lawsuits against the alleged file traders. But the RIAA's argument that the subpoenas allowed in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) apply to material transmitted through an ISP as well as content stored by an ISP "borders upon the silly," the court wrote.


The RIAA, which has requested hundreds of subpoenas this year, has filed 382 civil lawsuits against people who have allegedly shared music files illegally through peer-to-peer (P-to-P) software. The RIAA will continue to pursue legal action against file traders, even without the benefit of the DMCA subpoenas, the association said in a statement.




"This decision is inconsistent with both the views of Congress and the findings of the district court," said Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA in a written statement. "It unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation. Verizon is solely responsible for a legal process that will now be less sensitive to the interests of its subscribers who engage in illegal activity."


Verizon officials were not immediately available for comment, but a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called Friday's court ruling a victory for Internet users. "Internet users are the winners in the Verizon case," EFF staff attorney Wendy Seltzer said in an e-mail. "The effect of the appeals court decision is that we do not lose our privacy simply by connecting to the Internet. The ruling stops the record labels from taking our free speech rights as collateral damage in the campaign against the American music fan."


The DMCA does not allow for copyright holders to subpoena the names of ISP subscribers who simply use the ISP to access the Internet, wrote Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg. "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 in his opinion. "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 being to the motion picture and software industries. The plight of copyright holders must be addressed in the first instance by the Congress."


The DMCA does not address P-to-P file trading because the technology was not yet being used when the law passed in 1998, Ginsburg noted. The law allows copyright holders to subpoena ISPs when material that allegedly violates copyright resides on their servers, but does not address the actions of ISPs' customers, he wrote.


In January 2003, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Verizon had to turn over the name of an alleged file trader in response to an RIAA subpoena. Verizon has argued that the subpoenas, which are issued by a clerk of court without any further legal action required from the copyright holder, could destroy online privacy. Verizon and Pacific Bell Internet, a subsidiary of SBC Communications Inc., have fought the RIAA subpoenas, saying anyone claiming to be a copyright holder, including stalkers and rapists, could file subpoenas to find out the identity and home address of any Internet user.


The RIAA has argued the subpoenas are needed to fight the proliferation of illegal file trading using P-to-P software. The RIAA blames file trading for declining CD sales.

Great! I think that the RIAA should just go away. I know this amazing way to curb piracy! Stop charging so damn much!

 

[alset]

Regardless of our views on piracy and p2p networks designed to allow piracy (MUTE, for example), there's no reason why the RIAA should have power to force ISPs to divulge customer info. They aren't a law enforcement agency, and they seem to have forgotten that. I'm glad they have been put back in their place, at least a bit.

Dan

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by alset
Regardless of our views on piracy and p2p networks designed to allow piracy (MUTE, for example), there's no reason why the RIAA should have power to force ISPs to divulge customer info. They aren't a law enforcement agency, and they seem to have forgotten that. I'm glad they have been put back in their place, at least a bit.

Dan

I agree with you. Also- I am in no way saying that piracy should be legal, I am just at odds with thier methods applied to end piracy.

I am glad a judge was able to take this power away from the ever stronger corporate america.

 

[Counterfit]

See? Not all of our justice system is corrupt!

 

[mactastic]

Bet the people who signed those amnesty agreements are wishing they hadn't now!

 

[uhlawboi80]

i just think the RIAA president sounded ignorant when the said: "This decision is inconsistent with both the views of Congress and the findings of the district court" Uhhh, this is an appelate court, they dont much care what the district court decided...their job is to decide if they were right or wrong so obvioulsy their findings arent controling. And congress? They write the laws by bickering back and forth and through a series of compromises. The appelate courts look at everything from the legislative history to the actual statute and the comments to the statute to make their decision.

besides that...lets remember seperation of powers...congress writes the laws, the judiciary interprets the law.

either way, im just glad that finally the courts stopped this BS. Also im confused...how is this bad for the people? now they wont get warning? UM, if you needed the info to file the suit without it how do they think they will get to file these suits??

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by uhlawboi80
UM, if you needed the info to file the suit without it how do they think they will get to file these suits??

my guess is that they will find some other way to get at illegal sharers.

obviously, if that is the case, the RIAA is dooming itself to a slow, but sure death. the ONLY way to stop illegal sharing and downloading is to make it not worth the time, grief and risk to steal.

One way to do this is to scare people. I still speed in my car, but I know I could be pulled over. Nothing changes. Same for d/ling. If I am going to download, I will find a way to do it whilst protecting myself.

Another way to curb this is to make music cheap enough that it is easier to spend your money and BUY a song, then to spend your time (rememeber, time=money) downloading a quality copy. My guess is that the price point which would curb most illegal sharing would be around 25¢ a song, or a $2.50 album, with minimal DRM attached.

We all know that a CD costs litterally nothing to press, and neither does a case... The artist is already making cents per cd sold, so that is not a problem, the people who will have a problem with this model are the execs. They won't become multi-millionaires so quickly.

 

[johnnowak]

You can't charge $2.50 for an album... you'll never recoup the costs of making it. Not even close.

 

[4409723]

Originally posted by johnnowak
You can't charge $2.50 for an album... you'll never recoup the costs of making it. Not even close.

If you got rid of the the record companies (RIAA's WORST FEAR), prices would come way down. Artists could sell directly to ITMS or other such services in the future.

 

[iGav]

Originally posted by Wes
If you got rid of the the record companies (RIAA's WORST FEAR), prices would come way down. Artists could sell directly to ITMS or other such services in the future.

Artists can sell directly to the iTMS now... they don't have to go sign with a record company... no one is holding a gun to their heads.

Many artists sign because they want to.... because they want the $$$$ and the distribution.... some artists are as much to blame as the record companies.

 

[Sabenth]

i agree

iGAV
quote:
Originally posted by Wes
If you got rid of the the record companies (RIAA's WORST FEAR), prices would come way down. Artists could sell directly to ITMS or other such services in the future.


Artists can sell directly to the iTMS now... they don't have to go sign with a record company... no one is holding a gun to their heads.

Many artists sign because they want to.... because they want the $$$$ and the distribution.... some artists are as much to blame as the record companies.

and were to blame for buying the music at the rates they charge

 

[iGav]

Re: i agree

Originally posted by Sabenth
and were to blame for buying the music at the rates they charge

this also....

it annoys me that artists are sometimes, (well more often than not) made out to be the hard done by party in a record deal.

Ultimately the buck stops with the consumer, if they don't want, then they won't buy, same goes for buying sweat shop brands like Nikes, or Adidas or this 'band' here... the power is with the consumer.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by johnnowak
You can't charge $2.50 for an album... you'll never recoup the costs of making it. Not even close.

While $2.50 MAY be on the extreme side, I doubt it costs ANYWHERE near the old $18-$25 price tag cds were seeling for. As I stated before, pressing a cd is almost free, as is printing the inserts. I can do it for maybe 70¢ (CD, Insert, Case), a record company can reduce the cost a lot when printing and stamping in bulk.

My point is that someone is making bank on cds, and the majority of the time, it is NOT the artists. I think that the RIAA and others who are inflating the prices of music are the ones who are digging their own graves. If the music was sold at a fair and resonable prices, piracy would decrease because going and buying an album you may only like one song off of would be less of a risk at $5 instead of $15.

I would venture to guess that 95%+ of songs downloaded illegally are singles, not the entire cd. iTMS is definitly catering towards these people, so that is good, but there is still a problem for the other ~80% of the world without any computer/cd burner or mp3 player, they need less expensive cds.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by idkew
While $2.50 MAY be on the extreme side, I doubt it costs ANYWHERE near the old $18-$25 price tag cds were seeling for. As I stated before, pressing a cd is almost free, as is printing the inserts. I can do it for maybe 70¢ (CD, Insert, Case), a record company can reduce the cost a lot when printing and stamping in bulk.

My point is that someone is making bank on cds, and the majority of the time, it is NOT the artists. I think that the RIAA and others who are inflating the prices of music are the ones who are digging their own graves. If the music was sold at a fair and resonable prices, piracy would decrease because going and buying an album you may only like one song off of would be less of a risk at $5 instead of $15.

I would venture to guess that 95%+ of songs downloaded illegally are singles, not the entire cd. iTMS is definitly catering towards these people, so that is good, but there is still a problem for the other ~80% of the world without any computer/cd burner or mp3 player, they need less expensive cds.

Where do you shop? I haven't paid more than $14.99 for a CD unless it's a multi-disc set and/or an import.

While I agree artists usually get the short end of the stick your argruement for the "cheapness" of CDs is so incredibly flawed it's almost comical. Hitting only the high notes (pun intended) the cost of the CD covers the creation of the music, recording and mastering, advertising (TV, print, radio, www, in-store, it all costs $$$ ya know), manufacturing, and distribution of that CD plus all the associated costs with each of these steps (buildings, technology, equipment, employees, etc.,.).


Lethal

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Where do you shop? I haven't paid more than $14.99 for a CD unless it's a multi-disc set and/or an import.

While I agree artists usually get the short end of the stick your argruement for the "cheapness" of CDs is so incredibly flawed it's almost comical. Hitting only the high notes (pun intended) the cost of the CD covers the creation of the music, recording and mastering, advertising (TV, print, radio, www, in-store, it all costs $$$ ya know), manufacturing, and distribution of that CD plus all the associated costs with each of these steps (buildings, technology, equipment, employees, etc.,.).


Lethal

A) cds WERE selling for $18-$25, and as i said in the last sentence, now they sell for $15.

B) I am not a music producer, I am a designer. I know of the costs for such things as printing in bulk, that is why I mention the costs. I do not know if the price of producers, mixers.... therefore, I do not comment on their costs. I do, however, know a little something of economics.

One can price an item at a high price and sell few items, but make the same amount of profit if they were to sell at a low price and large volume. There is NO WAY that a CD costs 75% as much as a full length motion picture to make, yet they are priced at 75% of this price.

Interesting huh? Or am I missing that it takes $35,000,000+ to produce 50 minutes of music? In your view, it must, being that it costs $50,000,000+ (usually much more) to produce a 120 minute motion picture, with audio... Plus, if you want to add in advertising, promotions, sets, special effects... Movies cost much more than CDs to make, and they still are not more than twice the cost of cds, usually less than twice.

How do you expalin that? I explain it as someone is getting a lot of cash in their pocket.

to help illustrate my point:
Jay Z CD on Amazon: $17.99
Bad Boys DVD on Amazon: $20.27
Interesting huh? My guess is that the Bad Boys movie cost a bit more to make with all the special effects and such. And, I chose Jay Z to illustrate my point, since he is making almost all the profit off his cds, since he owns the record company, produces it....

[edit] I tried to find the costs of making Bad Boys II, but I could not. I did, however, find the cost of Titanic. It costs about $200,000,000 to make. It is selling, as a dvd, for about $25. Using these numbers, a dvd is .0000125% of the cost of the movie. Using these numbers on an $18 cd, it must cost $136,000,000 to make. I have a hard time believing that figure. I wonder how the makers of Titanic can afford selling with such a low profit margin? Even with box office profits, this must not be possible if CD people must make such a large profit margin to survive. Hummm?

 

[Counterfit]

Do you have any idea how much a pair of jeans with silver lined pockets cost?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by idkew
A) cds WERE selling for $18-$25, and as i said in the last sentence, now they sell for $15.

B) I am not a music producer, I am a designer. I know of the costs for such things as printing in bulk, that is why I mention the costs. I do not know if the price of producers, mixers.... therefore, I do not comment on their costs. I do, however, know a little something of economics.

One can price an item at a high price and sell few items, but make the same amount of profit if they were to sell at a low price and large volume. There is NO WAY that a CD costs 75% as much as a full length motion picture to make, yet they are priced at 75% of this price.

Interesting huh? Or am I missing that it takes $35,000,000+ to produce 50 minutes of music? In your view, it must, being that it costs $50,000,000+ (usually much more) to produce a 120 minute motion picture, with audio... Plus, if you want to add in advertising, promotions, sets, special effects... Movies cost much more than CDs to make, and they still are not more than twice the cost of cds, usually less than twice.

How do you expalin that? I explain it as someone is getting a lot of cash in their pocket.

to help illustrate my point:
Jay Z CD on Amazon: $17.99
Bad Boys DVD on Amazon: $20.27
Interesting huh? My guess is that the Bad Boys movie cost a bit more to make with all the special effects and such. And, I chose Jay Z to illustrate my point, since he is making almost all the profit off his cds, since he owns the record company, produces it....

[edit] I tried to find the costs of making Bad Boys II, but I could not. I did, however, find the cost of Titanic. It costs about $200,000,000 to make. It is selling, as a dvd, for about $25. Using these numbers, a dvd is .0000125% of the cost of the movie. Using these numbers on an $18 cd, it must cost $136,000,000 to make. I have a hard time believing that figure. I wonder how the makers of Titanic can afford selling with such a low profit margin? Even with box office profits, this must not be possible if CD people must make such a large profit margin to survive. Hummm?

You are missing a big piece of the picture here. Moives have more avenues of income than music does. A strong selling album is much, much more important, in terms of revenue than a strong selling DVD is. Movies get $$$ from ticket sales. They also have TV and cable deals. Don't forget rentals. And, finally, DVD sales. There's also merchendising and tie-in promotion deals but I'm not going to count those right now because they don't apply to every movie. Very popular movies can cover all of their costs from ticket sales alone. Titanic made it's money back, and then some, thru box office alone (it grossed over a billion dollars). I've heard that Return of the King has already recouped it's production costs. Most movies don't turn a profit from the theater, but can turn a profit by the combined efforts of all these income channels.

I still find it odd that you are basing the total cost of a CD on the least expensive aspects of it (the physical production of the discs and inserts/liners). You've admitted that, aside from the printing aspect, you have no idea what it takes to go from "hey I have an idea for a song" to "On Sale now at Best Buy" yet you are certain that CDs are significantly over-priced? I do have to give you a bit of credit though. Most people never admit when they have no idea what they are talking about.

When were CDs typically selling for $18-$25? When they first came out 20 years ago? For the past 10 years or so I've never paid more than $14.99 for a CD unless it was an import, a multi-disc set, a special collectors edition, etc.,. Heck, I remember when $10.99 or $11.99 was the norm for a CD.


Lethal

 

[MrMacMan]

This just means it will slow the RIAA down some...


Maybe they will think twice about suing people for millions of dollars.

CD's are overpriced.

I don't know who is pocketing the money, but the prices keep going up and up and up.

Now ever third album I want I can afford.