Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:39:21 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Verizon wins! From: Jason Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI, ISPs no longer have to respond to RIAA DMCA subpoenas re: P2P sharing, at least in Washington D.C.
D.C. Circuit accepts Verizon's statutory interpretation and reverses <http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/03- 7015a.pdf>
Because we agree with Verizon�s interpretation of the statute, we reverse the orders of the district court enforcing the subpoenas and do not reach either of Verizon�s constitutional arguments.
...
[T]he text of � 512(h) and the overall structure of � 512 clearly establish, as we have seen, that � 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting as a mere conduit for the transmission of information sent by others.
...
For the foregoing reasons, we remand this case to the district court to vacate its order enforcing the February 4 subpoena and to grant Verizon�s motion to quash the July 24 subpoena. So ordered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason M. Schultz (415) 436-9333 x 112 Staff Attorney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Electronic Frontier Foundation www.eff.org
---
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:22:23 -0500 From: "Paul Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RIAA v. Verizon
I assume you have heard that the DC Circuit has reversed the district court in RIAA v. Verizon, ruling that the subpoena procedure does not apply to identify persons who use ISP services for the P2P exchange of material that allegedly infringes a copyright, but only applies to those who host infringing material on the ISP's servers.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/03-7015a.pdf
A initial observations:
1. Who knows whether and to what extent the various constitutional arguments and concerns that Verizon and various public interest groups (including Public Citizen) urged, either directly or as a reason to construe the statute narrowly, but on the face of the opinion, at least, constitutional concerns play no role in the analysis. The opinion does not even contain a overt bow to "avoiding difficult constitutional questions"
2. After all the times Judge Bates berated Verizon for making weak arguments that made no sense, how satisfying will it be for Verizon to see the statement in the Court of Appeals' decision characterizing at least one RIAA argument as "borders on the silly".
3. This ruling presents the interesting question of whether to pursue, on a principled basis, objections to transferring cases from other courts like California to DC. Presumably, it is now in the interest of the individual clients to have their situations considered in DC, but more generally we like the idea of forcing subpoenas to be litigated where the subscribers live
<http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/03-7015a.pdf>
Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
_______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
