Cases on the Net

Charter Sues to Block RIAA from Getting Names

In the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)'s ongoing crusade to thwart the proliferation of unauthorized “peer-to-peer” file sharing of copyrighted musical works on the Internet by legally pursuing infringing end-users, yet another service provider has weighed in by suing the RIAA to block its national subpoena campaign.

Charter Communications, Inc. recently filed a lawsuit in federal court in St. Louis in response to the RIAA's issuance of hundreds of subpoenas at Charter's end-user customers.

“We consider our customer relationship to be our most important responsibility. We've exercised our legal right to protect the legitimate interests of our customers and our interests,” says Maggie Bellville, Charter's chief operating officer.

Last month alone, the RIAA filed 261 suits against individuals for allegedly sharing copyrighted music without authorization. The association said the latest subpoenas complied with the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the enabling act behind the subpoenas.

Under the DMCA, record companies and other copyright owners can subpoena Internet providers to uncover names of end-users they suspect of distributing copyrighted material online.

“Charter's filing is only procedural in nature and directly contradicts its past statement that it would 'fully cooperate' with the DMCA information subpoenas,” says a spokesperson for the RIAA.

“The subpoenas we filed comply with the letter and spirit of the law and always have. … None of this changes the underlying fact that when individuals engage in copyright infringement on the Internet, they are not anonymous, and service providers must reveal who they are,” he says.

Internet providers, such as Verizon Communications and SBC Communications, have also gone to court to challenge the industry's interpretation of the law, which they say violates due-process and free-speech rights and threatens privacy.

At least one Internet provider has lost its motion to prevent the RIAA from obtaining subscriber identities. A federal judge in Washington, DC ruled that the DMCA was constitutional in Verizon's case against the RIAA. That case is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In Amway Corp. v. P&G Co. et al., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20435, 2003 FED App. 360P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 2003), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court's decision to uphold Michigan's fair reporting privilege in defense of allegedly defamatory remarks that were published on the Internet.

Chief District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, granted of summary judgment for appellees, Proctor & Gamble and its law firm, in this diversity action raising a Michigan state-law claim of tortious interference with contract and with actual and prospective business relations, over the publication on the Internet of an allegedly defamatory complaint filed by the famed tier-marketing giant Amway.

The district court found that the actions of the companies and the law firm were protected by Michigan's fair reporting privilege, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. '600.2911(3). On appeal, the corporation argued that Michigan's reporting privilege for public documents did not protect parties such as the companies who participated in both the filing of the documents in a court proceeding and the publication of those court documents on the Internet.

The appellate court found that assuming that any allegations in the companies' complaint were libelous, the libel was included in the actual complaint and the companies did not add any statements, let alone false statements, when they supposedly published the complaint on the Internet, and thus, Michigan's fair reporting privilege applied to the publication of the entire complaints on the Internet. Therefore, because the conduct of the companies and the law firm was protected by the Michigan fair reporting privilege, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the companies and the law firm on the corporation's libel and defamation claim was affirmed.

Charter Sues to Block RIAA from Getting Names

In the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)'s ongoing crusade to thwart the proliferation of unauthorized “peer-to-peer” file sharing of copyrighted musical works on the Internet by legally pursuing infringing end-users, yet another service provider has weighed in by suing the RIAA to block its national subpoena campaign.

Charter Communications, Inc. recently filed a lawsuit in federal court in St. Louis in response to the RIAA's issuance of hundreds of subpoenas at Charter's end-user customers.

“We consider our customer relationship to be our most important responsibility. We've exercised our legal right to protect the legitimate interests of our customers and our interests,” says Maggie Bellville, Charter's chief operating officer.

Last month alone, the RIAA filed 261 suits against individuals for allegedly sharing copyrighted music without authorization. The association said the latest subpoenas complied with the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the enabling act behind the subpoenas.

Under the DMCA, record companies and other copyright owners can subpoena Internet providers to uncover names of end-users they suspect of distributing copyrighted material online.

“Charter's filing is only procedural in nature and directly contradicts its past statement that it would 'fully cooperate' with the DMCA information subpoenas,” says a spokesperson for the RIAA.

“The subpoenas we filed comply with the letter and spirit of the law and always have. … None of this changes the underlying fact that when individuals engage in copyright infringement on the Internet, they are not anonymous, and service providers must reveal who they are,” he says.

Internet providers, such as Verizon Communications and SBC Communications, have also gone to court to challenge the industry's interpretation of the law, which they say violates due-process and free-speech rights and threatens privacy.

At least one Internet provider has lost its motion to prevent the RIAA from obtaining subscriber identities. A federal judge in Washington, DC ruled that the DMCA was constitutional in Verizon's case against the RIAA. That case is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In Amway Corp. v. P&G Co. et al., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20435, 2003 FED App. 360P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich. 2003), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court's decision to uphold Michigan's fair reporting privilege in defense of allegedly defamatory remarks that were published on the Internet.

Chief District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, granted of summary judgment for appellees, Proctor & Gamble and its law firm, in this diversity action raising a Michigan state-law claim of tortious interference with contract and with actual and prospective business relations, over the publication on the Internet of an allegedly defamatory complaint filed by the famed tier-marketing giant Amway.

The district court found that the actions of the companies and the law firm were protected by Michigan's fair reporting privilege, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. '600.2911(3). On appeal, the corporation argued that Michigan's reporting privilege for public documents did not protect parties such as the companies who participated in both the filing of the documents in a court proceeding and the publication of those court documents on the Internet.

The appellate court found that assuming that any allegations in the companies' complaint were libelous, the libel was included in the actual complaint and the companies did not add any statements, let alone false statements, when they supposedly published the complaint on the Internet, and thus, Michigan's fair reporting privilege applied to the publication of the entire complaints on the Internet. Therefore, because the conduct of the companies and the law firm was protected by the Michigan fair reporting privilege, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the companies and the law firm on the corporation's libel and defamation claim was affirmed.