A setback for the RIAA lawsuit machine

Appelate court rules that subpeonas served by the RIAA to Verizon are illegal. So much for the RIAA forcing subscriber names from ISPs without a formal lawsuit against the ISP...

Until I read it, I was cheering. Then I read the article, and it says something that confuses me:

We can and will continue to file copyright infringement lawsuits against file sharers who engage in illegal activity (...) 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.

How can it be that way? Am I misreading the article, is it reporting wrong, or is the RIAA just blowing hot air and spreading FUD?

As I remember, it's possible to file lawsuits against unknown individuals. Maybe that's what they're talking about.

Or maybe filing suit against the ISPs incorporates filing suits against the people. Seems odd. You'd think it'd be two different suits.

I'd say FUD, with some backup.

My question, after reading the linked article is what about the people who were illegally given up on subpeona? Are their cases now null (providing they haven't settled as of yet), or will those cases still be in force? I assume it's the latter as the prior would've been worth mentioning so it probably would have been by the article's author.

-Zeke

The ISPs capitulated unneccessarily, but they did. The only recourse I can think of is for the end users to sue their ISPs.

Check out this article at the Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34616.html
It explains it a little more clearly.

Ah yes, it does explain it more clearly. Much less of a thing to cheer about:

The RIAA can still sue song swappers but must go through the more costly process of filing individual "John Doe" lawsuits against the anonymous traders. These lawsuits would be required to obtain the person's identity. Under the ISP subpoena process the RIAA had been using, it needed only pay a small fee - less than $100 - to obtain user info from a county clerk.

Thank you, Register.

tfab -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14836-2003Dec19?language=printer

From WP's article, which is a bit more in depth (actually shows verizon's response to that quote):

---
"We can and will continue to file copyright infringement lawsuits against file sharers who engage in illegal activity," Sherman said in a prepared statement. The ruling "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."

Using the DMCA subpoenas, the RIAA was able to obtain the names of suspected file sharers from ISPs without filing lawsuit and without getting a judge's approval. Without that subpoena power, the RIAA would have to file suit against unnamed file-swappers in order to obtain their identities.

"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," Sherman said.

Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch called Sherman's assertion "completely disingenuous."

"It's not on their agenda to care about the subscriber or any of the subscribers' rights, but automate the process even further," Deutsch said.
---

-brendan