eclectica
2003-12-19, 21:00
A Court of Appeals decision was issued today. The court challenge was between Verizon and the RIAA. Their full decision can be read here (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/03-7015a.pdf).
The sum of their decision was that ISPs are only responsible for copyright infringement when it is located on their servers. Peer-to-peer copyright infringement involves content that is located on the computers of individuals, and is therefore outside the scope of the DMCA 1998. Here is the relevant quote from the decision:
The Congress had no reason to foresee the application of § 512(h) to P2P file sharing, nor did they draft the DMCA broadly enough to reach the new technology when it came along. Had the Congress been aware of P2P technology, or anticipated its development, § 512(h) might have been drafted more generally. Be that as it may, contrary to the RIAA’s claim, nothing in the legislative history supports the issuance of a § 512(h) subpoena to an ISP acting as a conduit for P2P file sharing.
This is a significant victory for the p2p movement. DMCA subpoenas can no longer be issued with ease to ISPs when individuals are suspected of copyright infringement. The RIAA will now have to take the more costly approach of filing lawsuits against each anonymous p2p user, in order to find their identity. The burden on ISPs to cooperate with the RIAA has been removed.
The sum of their decision was that ISPs are only responsible for copyright infringement when it is located on their servers. Peer-to-peer copyright infringement involves content that is located on the computers of individuals, and is therefore outside the scope of the DMCA 1998. Here is the relevant quote from the decision:
The Congress had no reason to foresee the application of § 512(h) to P2P file sharing, nor did they draft the DMCA broadly enough to reach the new technology when it came along. Had the Congress been aware of P2P technology, or anticipated its development, § 512(h) might have been drafted more generally. Be that as it may, contrary to the RIAA’s claim, nothing in the legislative history supports the issuance of a § 512(h) subpoena to an ISP acting as a conduit for P2P file sharing.
This is a significant victory for the p2p movement. DMCA subpoenas can no longer be issued with ease to ISPs when individuals are suspected of copyright infringement. The RIAA will now have to take the more costly approach of filing lawsuits against each anonymous p2p user, in order to find their identity. The burden on ISPs to cooperate with the RIAA has been removed.