, Washington Post 2003-04-25
A federal judge yesterday reaffirmed the recording industry's right to compel Internet service providers to turn over the names of customers suspected of illegally sharing music online, raising the specter of the record labels serving hundreds or thousands of subpoenas seeking to crack down on digital file swapping.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates rejected arguments by Verizon Communications Inc. that revealing the names would violate subscribers' right to privacy. In doing so, Bates refused to put on hold a subpoena that the Recording Industry of America served on Verizon last summer for the name of one of its 1.8 million customers, who the association claims is illegally circulating copyrighted works.The RIAA said that without such information, it cannot contact the customer and demand that he or she stop the activity.
"If users of pirate peer-to-peer sites don't want to be identified, they should not break the law by illegally distributing music," said RIAA President Cary Sherman. Yesterday's decision made it clear that such people cannot rely on Internet service providers to "shield them from accountability," he said.
In U.S. District Court in Washington, RIAA lawyers said they intend to serve a "substantial number" of subpoenas on Internet service providers. Because file sharing is popular with teenagers, parents could be legal targets if they are the subscribers to services that connect their homes to the Internet.
Verizon argued that it should not be compelled to reveal names based on a simple demand from the RIAA.
The company will ask a federal appeals court to put off the subpoena until it hears the case. Bates gave Verizon two weeks to seek a delay.
"Verizon will continue to use every legal means available to protect our users' privacy," said Sarah B. Deutsch, the company's associate general counsel. "We feel strongly that the due process rights of perhaps of millions of Internet subscribers now hang in the balance." She said the constitutional issues in the case would warrant appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
Part of the dispute is how a 1998 law, called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, enables copyright holders to protect their work in digital form. Under the law, a copyright holder can request a subpoena by asserting that a violation has occurred, and the subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without review by a judge.
Verizon argued that such a system could lead to cyber-stalking and other abuse. A wife-beater could pretend to be a copyright holder and serve a subpoena demanding the location of a battered spouse who is hiding, Deutsch said.
Verizon, which said it opposes digital piracy, instead wants copyright holders to sue "John Doe" defendants, after which the Internet service providers would turn over the names.
Bates rejected Verizon's arguments, saying that copyright holders must provide detailed, sworn declarations in support of their request for subpoenas and that Internet service providers have the right to contest them.
"Verizon's bald speculation of mistakes, abuse or harassment, that has yet to occur to any degree . . . is simply not enough," Bates wrote in his opinion.
Overall, he wrote, "Verizon's customers should have little expectation of privacy (or anonymity) in infringing copyrights."
Bates said Congress intended to enable copyright holders to move quickly to stop infringement, and that the harm RIAA suffers from continued infringement outweighed any harm Verizon might suffer by turning over the customer's name before the case is heard on appeal.
The recording industry estimates that it lost $5 billion worldwide last year as a result of people sharing music files. It has battled file-sharing services in court and was able to shut down pioneer Napster Inc.
But other services persevered and grew, and RIAA decided to go after individuals. In addition to pressuring Internet service providers for names, the association recently sued four University of Maryland students, claiming copyright infringement.
