The next phase of the anti-download war begins in American today when the record labels take an internet service provider to court to force them to name a subscriber accused of illegally trading copyrighted songs. It’s the first time the labels have targeted an individual for legal action, albeit an individual the labels believe is swapping tracks at an incredibly high level. The accused’s ISP – Verizon – claims it goes against their customer privacy policies to give out any information about individuals who use their services. If the courts side with the ISP it cold open the doors for record labels to start seeking out and threatening individual music fans who partake in serial file swapping.
Verizon general counsel Sarah Deutsch told reporters a record industry victory would harm the privacy rights of Verizon subscribers and force ISPs to give up the names of its customers without judicial review. "There are plenty of companies that have business problems that would like to start a letter-writing campaign to hundreds of thousands of people. We'll be a turnstile."
The legal case depends on your interpretation of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was passed to protect copyright holders from piracy. It was created out of a compromise among internet providers, technology firms and content owners. Verizon claim they are only required to act if copyrighted material is held on their servers – ie made available via one of their customers' websites. With music swapping the tracks are held on the customer's own computer – the internet is only use as a channel for sending the track somewhere else – Verizon say this removes any liability from them, the Recording Industry Association of America disagree. "It wasn't the compromise that we agreed to," the RIAA say. "There's nothing in there that suggests that it only applies when they are carrying the material."
Ironically the customer involved in this case, who is alleged to have shared thousand of songs via the Kazaa network, doesn’t actually know it’s them yet! "Our general policy is to inform a user when we receive a subpoena," Deutsch said. "Since in our view this isn't valid, we haven't gotten the consumer involved in the debate."