Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

RIAA Subpoenas and the Final Failure of the DMCA

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Sun Aug 17, 2003 at 07:37:49 PM PDT

I think one point about the RIAA’s (Recording Industry Association of America) attempt to sue everyone in sight needs to be emphasized. In filing thousands of subpoenas trying to force ISPs to identify customers who may have pirated music, the RIAA has demonstrated one thing beyond a doubt: the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) has absolutely and completely failed in its purpose.

While it’s generally recognized that the DMCA is badly flawed, most of the negative commentary has focused on the law’s ban on circumventing copyright protection systems and the resulting abuses of fair use principles. But there was a second major section (Section. 512) that the DMCA added to the Copyright Act called “Limitations on liability relating to material online.” DMCA defenders have often cited that section as being the section of the law that works, an assertion that has now been proven false by the RIAA.


Section 512 basically says that online service providers will not be held liable for copyright infringement by their users as long as they respond “expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing …” when notified a copyright holder. The original intent of Congress was to prevent ISPs and other Internet services from having to police their users’ content for copyright infringement, and in theory it seemed a reasonable way to protect copyright holders while not unduly burdening fledgling Internet businesses.

In practice, of course, it’s turned out to be anything but reasonable. DMCA “takedowns” based on flimsy or totally bogus claims of copyright infringement are a daily occurrence. And not just because of the RIAA, since movie studios, game console manufacturers, pornographers and spammers have also learned what a powerful tool the DMCA can be in the hands of those with a little knowledge of the law and no scruples. Small ISPs and web hosting services often find the need to respond to DMCA takedown orders an enormous burden, particularly if they have any sense of responsibility for their users.

All the RIAA has done with its out-of-control legal attack is to take the DMCA takedown process to its logical but absurd conclusion. Now even the biggest broadband suppliers like SBC and Verizon are saying they can’t be saddled with the substantial costs involved in responding to all the subpoenas they’re receiving from RIAA. And, as a recent lawsuit filed by SBC-subsidiary PacBell against the RIAA and several adult entertainment operations makes clear, it's not just the recording industry that can use these subpoena tactics to the detriment of ISPs and their users. After all, copyright holders come in all manner of life forms, including some very low ones.

Ultimately, we will probably owe the RIAA a debt of thanks for what it’s done here. DMCA or no DMCA, it’s clear the RIAA legal strategy will itself ultimately fail to thwart peer-to-peer technology. But in forcing ISPs to take sides against them -- not to mention millions of Americans who must worry if they or their children are one of the subpoena targets -- the RIAA is actually helping highlight the DMCA’s failure. Even Congress must soon come to understand how badly its purposes have been perverted by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and those who make use of it.

< Forced to Play the Rebate Game | Will the Blaster Worm Make Windows Updates Mandatory? >


Display: Sort:
RIAA Subpoenas and the Final Failure of the DMCA | 5 comments (5 topical) | Post A Comment
Curious[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by ChuckGabriel on Mon Aug 18, 2003 at 09:18:32 AM PDT

I would be interested in hearing the whole story. In particular, how could porn purveyors and spammers possibly invoke DMCA to their benefit? I understand, however, why you might not want to provide that information here, since it could be very dangerous in the hands of heretofore uninformed members of the aforementioned groups who might read this column.

[ Reply to This ]


DMCA and Porn[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Mason on Mon Aug 18, 2003 at 11:21:28 AM PDT

Copyright infringement is rampant in the online porn industry.  Many, many, many sites offer for free, sell memberships, or sell hard media full of stolen content.  It's conceptually no different than any other company sending DMCA takedown notices for copyrighted material.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Curious[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Ed Foster on Mon Aug 18, 2003 at 01:20:58 PM PDT

Typically, pornographers learn how to do DMCA takedowns when other pornographers do it to them, so there isn't much chance we'll teach them anything they don't already know. If you want further details, EFF posted a press release on the PacBell lawsuit with links to background material including a PDF of the full complaint against the RIAA and the adult entertainment outfit. And while you're there, you might want to think about making a donation to the EFF to help them carry on the fight against DMCA abuses.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


RIAA royaties[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 22, 2003 at 07:25:06 AM PDT

What does the RIAA really think they are going to accomplish by suing literally millions of file sharers? Do they think we all will really pony up $15-$20 for every CD we want to hear? And will singer/songwriters ever really get their royalties? Many artists wind up broke because of the way the record companies design the contract. (See http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm for a great example.) Furthermore, it has been well documented how record companies have, in the past, not paid ANY royalties to the artist (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1765522.stm for info on how Peggy Lee, Louis Armstrong and others were bilked out of millions of royalty dollars). So, who really is getting the lion's share of the $15.99 CD? Certainly not the artists, whose copywrite infringment the RIAA is so adamantly allegedly protecting!!!

[ Reply to This ]


DMCA[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 06:56:50 PM PDT

The DMCA was about the technolgy of copyright protection. All the folk are doing is copying the already ripped MP3s. You are confusing the DMCA with the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act from 1997 that made it a criminal offense to download more than a nominal amount of copyrighted material. Nominal, according to the act, is $1000 retail value willfully copied in any 180 day period for non-commercial purposes. If you sell it to someone, you can be busted for just trying, but if you just are using it and not charging, you can have up to $1000 worth every six months. That's the law! Clearly the Congress never intended to criminalize every kid who comes along and copies a track off a CD or downloads one from the internet. A few Congressmen and a Senator are proposing to hold some hearings to grill the RIAA in regard to their present practice. The RIAA is backing down fairly fast, it seems, and claiming that they are only pursuing those with thousands of titles for downloading. We shall see. The musicians and singers have been popularized via the public airwaves and I think that very action makes the music a public commodity. The US Supreme Court decreed some years ago that off-air recording was legitimate use of copyrighted material and so merely represented a time shift in the enjoyment of the material. If it has been broadcast, it is in the public domain. At least if you can prove you ripped it off the airwaves. It is problematical as to how to tell the difference in the source of an MP3. It will be interesting to see the outcome when someone finally takes this situation to a real court.

[ Reply to This ]


RIAA Subpoenas and the Final Failure of the DMCA | 5 comments (5 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
Bill Gates and PC history
21 comments

Borderline searches and seizures
15 comments

Reader voices: Angry at eBay
12 comments

Teleblend's terrible terms
2 comments

Spyware bill cloaks a mini-UCITA
9 comments

Reader Voices: Autorenewal Defenses
23 comments

More The Gripelog...

Submit a gripe
About the Author
Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
12 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
13 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
26 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
47 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
22 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
14 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
 Top News 
 Columnists 
 Tech Watch 
 Test Center Reviews 
 Applications 
 App Development 
 E-Business Solutions & Strategies 
 End-user Hardware 
 Networking 
 Operating Systems 
 Platforms 
 Security 
 Standards & Protocols 
 Storage 
 Telecommunications 
 Wireless 
 Web Services 

 

create account | faq | search