Snitch Staff Writer
Late last month, Insight Communications e-mailed its broadband Internet customers to detail the role the company “is required to play in enforcing copyrights.”
Insight’s compliance with subpoenas issued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and other copyright holders could end in federal lawsuits for customers who share and download music using peer-to-peer networks.
“We’re caught in the middle,” said Amanda Kahler, a call center manager for tech support at Insight’s Louisville offices.
Kahler said Insight has been placed in an “unfortunate” situation by the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), a federal law meant to protect copyright owners.
In its e-mail notice, the company announced that it may be forced to comply with portions of the act that allow copyright holders to subpoena records relating to possible copyright infringement. The subpoenas themselves do not have to be issued by judges and they are not attached to any legal proceeding.
In addition to shutting down a customer’s access to the Internet, the company told users that it, like all other Internet Service Providers, “may also be required ... to disclose the infringing customers’ identity to the copyright holder.”
Slashdot.org user “diersing,” who asked other users if they’d received the e-mail, asked, “Am I the only one that sees a difference between a police agency with a warrant in hand asking who’s who and the damn ‘copyright holder’? Shouldn’t there be a burden of proof before my privacy is violated?”
Kahler said Insight is concerned about its customers’ privacy, adding, “We’re very particular about the subpoenas that we’ll consider valid. It has to meet certain criteria.”
Verizon, Boston College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have challenged the subpoenas for different reasons. U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota has written a letter to the RIAA hinting that it may be abusing its newfound subpoena power.
Boston College and MIT won a round in federal court this month when a judge ruled that the RIAA could not serve subpoenas aimed at students suspected of illegal file-sharing. The subpoenas were issued in Washington, D.C., but served in Massachusetts. The two colleges have refused to name the students.
Verizon has been less successful. The communications giant initially moved to quash a subpoena issued by the RIAA. The association had requested the identity of a Verizon customer who used the KaZaa filesharing service to share copyrighted material. Verizon lost the initial case, and was forced to turn over the name while it pursues an appeal.
Sen. Coleman is among critics who argue that the recording industry has been far too aggressive in its attempts to stop illegal file-sharing. Coleman, a former roadie for a rock band, has accused RIAA of being excessive in issuing subpoenas. He said he will hold hearings examining the industry’s authority in enforcing copyright.
On Monday, The Associated Press reported that the RIAA has altered its position, saying it will now sue only those users who have downloaded a “substantial amount” of music. The group declined to define “substantial.”
“Through the end of July, the recording industry says it served 1,075 subpoenas to ISPs demanding information about end users,” said Wendy Seltzer, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “That onslaught is continuing now in August.”
Seltzer says EFF’s main objection to the subpoenas — a provision of the 1998 copyright act — is that they are not issued by a judge and that they don’t have to be attached to any pending legal proceedingas other subpoenas must be.
Seltzer called the subpoenas “fishing expeditions. No judge ever sees them,” she said.
