Source: http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/?p=3144
Timestamp: 2018-06-24 14:21:44
Document Index: 159477146

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512']

8th Circuit Heard From on § 512(h) – FurdLog
8th Circuit Heard From on § 512(h)
Slashdot’s RIAA Loses DMCA Subpoena Case Against Charter includes a link to the opinion: In re: Charter Communications, Inc., Subpoena Enforcement Matter – 03-3802
This case concerns whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), permits copyright owners and their representatives to obtain and serve subpoenas on internet service providers (ISPs) to obtain personal information about an ISP’s subscribers who are alleged to be transmitting copyrighted works via the internet using so-called “peer to peer” or “P2P” file sharing computer programs. The dispute arose when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) requested the clerk of the district court to issue subpoenas under § 512(h) to Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter), 1 in its capacity as an ISP, requiring Charter to turn over the identities of persons believed to be engaging in unlawful copyright infringement. The district court issued the subpoenas and denied Charter’s motion to quash. We reverse.
[…] Based on this analysis of the statute, Charter argues § 512(h) does not allow a copyright owner to request a subpoena for an ISP which merely acts as a conduit for data transferred between two internet users. Charter avers the text and structure of the DMCA require the ISP to be able both to locate and remove the allegedly infringing material before a subpoena can be issued against it. Thus, where Charter acted solely as a conduit for the transmission of material by others (its subscribers using P2P file-sharing software to exchange files stored on their personal computers), Charter contends the subpoena was not properly issued. We agree.
Plus, some interesting dicta:
For purposes of this appeal, we do not address the constitutional arguments presented by Charter, but do note this court has some concern with the subpoena mechanism of § 512(h). We comment without deciding that this provision may unconstitutionally invade the power of the judiciary by creating a statutory framework pursuant to which Congress, via statute, compels a clerk of a court to issue a subpoena, thereby invoking the court’s power. Further, we believe Charter has at least a colorable argument that a judicial subpoena is a court order that must be supported by a case or controversy at the time of its issuance. We emphasize, however, for purposes of this appeal we do not reach these issues and have decided this case on the more narrow statutory grounds.
Note that there is also a quite extensive dissent that merits reading.
See also the Washington Post’s Court Rejects Music Industry Subpoenas [pdf]; Court nixes RIAA subpoenas; EFF: Music Industry Must Respect Privacy of Filesharers
Author adminPosted on January 4, 2005 Categories Uncategorized
Previous Previous post: IEEE Spectrum on AACS
Next Next post: MInnesota Will Appeal FCC’s Vonage Decision