News

Federal judges have issued somewhat conflicting rulings in the ongoing legal battle over illegitimate file sharing. As the situation stands at the end of April, individuals may be held responsible for copyright violation, but the services they use in the process may not.

In an ongoing case in Washington DC, a federal judge has rejected a constitutional challenge brought by Verizon Communications, Inc. to avoid revealing the identity of a broadband customer accused by the music industry of being a "node" for massive file sharing. On April 24, US District Judge John D. Bates ruled that First Amendment protections concerning anonymous expression don't conflict with the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA allows the music industry to subpoena Internet service providers to reveal the names of suspected music pirates, without requiring a judge's signature.

Verizon has only two weeks to win an appeal; if not successful, it must turn over the customer's name to representatives of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). "Verizon is going to continue to use every legal means available to protect the privacy of our subscribers and immediately seek a stay," said Verizon's associate general counsel Sarah B. Deutsch, adding that revealing the identities of Internet users exposes them "to a host of scam artists, crooks, and stalkers."

A day after the Washington ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that the companies backing file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus aren't liable for the illegal copying of music and movies done by users of their service. The entertainment industry was stunned by a 34-page ruling issued by US District Court Judge Stephen Wilson, who determined that Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks, Inc. (distributor of Morpheus peer-to-peer software), were no more responsible for copyright violation than Sony Corporation was by introducing the videocassette recorder into the consumer market in the late 1970s.

Wilson cited a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that absolved Sony of copyright infringement charges brought against it by Walt Disney Company. Just as Sony had no control over the ultimate use of its machines, neither do Grokster or StreamCast have control or responsibility for the use of their systems. Providing the means to perform a crime is not in itself a crime, Wilson ruled. Legal scholars might like to compare this reasoning with that used to levy punishment on the tobacco and gun industries, both of which have been found responsible for the results of their products.

Parting shot: Napster is mostly gone and forgotten, except by music industry executives and lawyers. Venture capitalists who backed the startup blamed for launching the music industry on its three-year downward spiral are now themselves the targets of copyright violation lawsuits brought by the same companies that crushed Napster in an overwhelming onslaught of litigation.

On Monday, April 21, Universal Music and EMI filed a lawsuit in a Northern California federal court against Hummer Winblad Venture Partners and two of the San Francisco firm's general partners, Hank Barry and John Hummer. The suit against the venture capitalists seeks $150,000 per copyright violation, as well as unpublished punitive damages. Plaintiffs charge that through a $13 million investment in Napster in May 2000, the firm sought to profit from Napster's "massive" infringement of copyrighted works.

Bertelsmann Music Group was also a plaintiff against Napster, but settled early and made its own investment in the venture, hoping to leverage Napster's technology for its own online music service. Napster was bankrupted by the cost of its legal defense and Bertelsmann was subsequently sued by its music industry colleagues, presaging an executive turnover at the German media conglomerate. At its peak, Napster had more than 60 million users.