[Am-info] Perhaps Microsot is becoming less relevant?

[Gene Gaines]

Microsoft was one of the aggressive backers of the UCITA attempt
to crush the rights of individuals, software users, and in fact
any consumer who did business over the Internet.

But it is a strange world.

As Fred Miller sent us,

  "A federal judge hands a stunning court victory to file-swapping
  services Streamcast and Grokster, dismissing much of the music
  and film industries' lawsuits against them."

But on the other hand, the RIAA is attempting to identify those
trading files through their Internet Service Provider.

And Verizon, as an ISP, is fighting that effort in court.  See
article below.

Interesting statements stands out from the article,

  "Unlike a usual subpoena, which requires some underlying claim
  of a crime and must be signed by a judge or magistrate, under
  the DMCA a subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without
  presenting evidence of a crime being committed."

So the world is interesting.

And perhaps our beloved (or behated) Micksoft is becomming less
and less of a force in our world.

Here is the article about Verizon and the RIAA, from
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2196511b   :


April 24, 2003
Verizon Must Reveal Names of
Suspected Pirates
By Roy Mark

U.S. District Court Judge John Bates ruled Thursday Verizon must
reveal the names of two Internet customers the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) claims have illegally downloaded
hundreds of copyrighted songs from the Web. Bates also issued a
temporary stay to allow the U.S. Court of Appeals time to consider
the issue of a stay.

Bates had already sided with the RIAA in January, ruling Verizon
would have to disclose the names, but the telecom giant was
seeking a stay of that decision until its appeal, which appears
headed to the Supreme Court, is heard. Verizon's appeal is based
on the constitutionality of the subpoena power provision of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

In his Thursday ruling, Bates said the subpoena power granted
under the DMCA does not violate the first amendment rights of
Internet users.

"Moreover, because Verizon is unable to show irreparable harm or
that is it is likely to succeed on an appeal of its constitutional
or statutory challenges, the Court also denies Verizon's request
for a stay pending appeal," Bates wrote in his decision.

Verizon said it would immediately ask the Appeals Court for a stay
of the ruling.

"Today's ruling goes far beyond the interests of large copyright
monopolists -- such as RIAA -- in enforcing its copyrights. This
decision exposes anyone who uses the Internet to potential
predators, scam artists and crooks, including identity thieves and
stalkers," said John Thorne, Verizon's SVP and deputy general
counsel. "We will continue to use every legal means available to
protect our subscribers' privacy and will immediately seek a stay
from the U.S. Court of Appeals."

Thorne said the Court of Appeals has already agreed to hear the
case on an expedited schedule.

"Verizon feels very strongly that the privacy, safety and due
process rights of hundreds of thousands -- or perhaps millions --
of Internet subscribers hang in the balance of the Court's
decision," Thorne said. "We look to the Court of Appeals to decide
this case in a narrow manner that avoids a chilling affect on
Internet users' private communications, such as e-mail, instant
messages or surfing the Internet."

Invoking the controversial subpoena clause of the DMCA, the RIAA
in August asked Bates to force Verizon to reveal the name of a
subscriber suspected of downloading copyrighted music. Verizon
refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing it didn't think the
subpoena request met the circumstances that the DMCA allows for in
compelling information in order to protect against piracy.

Verizon contended the subpoena related to material transmitted
over Verizon's network, but not stored on it, and thus fell
outside the scope of the subpoena power authorized in the DMCA.

After Bates ruled in the RIAA's favor, Verizon sought a stay in
order to not have to reveal the name while the case was appealed.
Verizon also expanded its legal defense to a constitutional review
of the DMCA, particularly the subpoena power provision of the
DMCA.

Unlike a usual subpoena, which requires some underlying claim of a
crime and must be signed by a judge or magistrate, under the DMCA
a subpoena can be issued by a court clerk without presenting
evidence of a crime being committed.

The RIAA responded by filing a subpoena request for another
Verizon subscriber suspected of illegally downloading music. Bates
consolidated both cases.

"A federal district court has again affirmed that the law which
provides copyright holders with a process to identify infringers
is both Constitutional and appropriate," said Cary Sherman,
president of the RIAA. "If users of pirate peer-to-peer sites
don't want to be identified, they should not break the law by
illegally distributing music. Today's decision makes clear that
these individuals cannot rely on their ISPs to shield them from
accountability."

--end article--

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
Sterling, Virginia