RIAA, you're SOL.

That's basically what the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the recording industry today in a decision (PDF) that reverses an earlier court's ruling that the RIAA has the right to subpoena an Internet service provider for names and personal information of its file-swapping users.

The court said that the RIAA has no right to issue subpoenas to an ISP for personal user information when the ISP merely is used as "a conduit for communications" between its users. The court said Verizon is not responsible for what its users do while using the Internet, or what they do with files taken from the Net.

Furthermore, the court threw out the RIAA's argument that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides for the protection of music files that are traded on peer-to-peer networks.

Tonight on "Tech Live," get the very latest on this landmark decision that throws into uncertain territory the entire RIAA legal strategy of pursuing thousands of alleged file swappers. On the show tonight, we'll have reaction from both sides in the case, as well as a look at what the decision means for the RIAA, ISPs, and Internet users' rights online.

Take your suit and shove it

The stunning reversal stems from a case between the RIAA and Verizon, which sought to protect the names of two of its users from the RIAA's stepped-up legal efforts last year. In June of 2003, an appeals court rejected Verizon's request for a stay, which sought to delay an earlier court ruling that the RIAA had the right under the DMCA to subpoena user information from ISPs including Verizon.

The RIAA contended that the DMCA gave it, along with copyright holders, the right to bypass the normal judicial process requiring a judge to review and sign subpoena requests. Instead, the earlier court ruling said that the DMCA in fact did not require copyright holders to secure a judge's approval when sending subpoenas.

The decision opened the floodgates against file swappers. The RIAA began issuing thousands of subpoenas against alleged file swappers, and began also filing lawsuits against dozens of others.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting Verizon. In a statement, it called the court's decision a win for music fans and Internet users alike.

"The effect of the appeals court decision is that we do not lose our privacy simply by connecting to the Internet," said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "The ruling stops the record labels from taking our free speech rights as collateral damage in the campaign against the American music fan."

The RIAA, meanwhile, is vowing to press on with its fight against file swappers.

"Regardless of this decision, we will continue to defend our rights online on behalf of artists, songwriters and countless others involved in bringing music to the public," said RIAA President Cary Sherman, in a statement released after the court decision. "We can and will continue to file copyright infringement lawsuits against file sharers who engage in illegal activity."

DMCA pre-P2P

One of the cornerstones of the RIAA's case against Verizon assumed that the DMCA provided for the protection of MP3 files traded on various P2P networks, including KaZaA. The court notes that when Congress was considering the DMCA, it saw a danger in bulletin board services and other FTP applications, but not P2P applications like KaZaA or Napster.

"The Congress had no reason to foresee the application of... P2P file sharing, nor did they draft the DMCA broadly enough to reach the new technology when it came along," the court wrote in its decision. "Had the Congress been aware of P2P technology, or anticipated its development [the DMCA] might have been drafted more generally. ... Nothing in the legislative history supports the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting as a conduit for P2P file sharing."

The court's opinion continues, offering sympathy to the needs of the RIAA to protect its members copyrights, but adds: "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 RIAA, in its statement, said nothing about appealing the decision. If it did, the RIAA would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

How the RIAA will continue its legal fight against swappers is uncertain. But that apparently doesn't mean it won't sue more alleged file swappers.

"This decision is inconsistent with both the views of Congress and the findings of the district court," Sherman said in his 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."

"Tech Live" reporters Paul Chambers and Melanie Kim contributed to this story.
Discuss this Hot Topic in our special RIAA messageboard forum!