P2P-Zone - View Single Post

scooobiedooobie · 31-07-03, 08:16 PM

This is the entire letter that Sen. Coleman sent......

"On June 25, 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced plans to file "thousands of lawsuits charging individual peer-to-peer music distributors with copyright infringement."

"According to press reports, the RIAA has won at least 911 subpoenas since June 26, 2003 in order to garner information for the civil lawsuits that could be filed against consumers who are alleged to have illegally used file-sharing programs. These lawsuits would seek civil penalties from $750 to $150,000 per song. The RIAA asserts that only those who traffic in 'substantial' numbers of files will be targeted.

"However, when filing an application for a subpoena, the RIAA does not differentiate between nominal file sharers and those who trade dozens or hundreds of files. Subpoenas have been won for computer users who shared as few as five songs.

"The RIAA subpoenas have snared unsuspecting grandparents whose grandchildren have used their personal computers, individuals whose roommates have shared their computers, as well as colleges and universities across the United States like Boston College, DePaul University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Individuals like Bob Barnes, a grandfather from Fresno, California, are not immune from devastating financial loses. Mr. Barnes is facing $45 million in penalties for downloading some of his 'oldie' favorites.

"This barrage of RIAA subpoenas is creating such a backlog at the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, that the Court has been forced to reassign clerks to process the paperwork. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the D.C. District Courthouse is 'functioning more like a clearing house, issuing subpoenas for all over the country.'

"Surely it was not Congress’ intent when it passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to short-circuit due process protections, relegate a U.S. District Court to providing 'rubber-stamp' subpoenas, enable the music industry to collect information about consumers with little or no restrictions, and place numerous average consumers at risk of bankruptcy.

"The industry has legitimate concerns about copyright infringement. It is imperative to note that we are dealing with stealing artists’ songs and the industry’s profits. The industry has every right to develop practical remedies for protecting its rights. Yet, the industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may simply have been victims of circumstance, or possessed a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files. I am sure it is not the industry’s intent to needlessly cause harm in its efforts to legally protect its rights. Yet, the law of unintended consequences may be at work in this matter.

"As you may know, I have an abiding interest in protecting the privacy rights of individuals. Clearly, I do not condone illegal activity, however I am confident that there may be a more circumspect and narrowly tailored method that RIAA could utilize to prevent substantial illegal file sharing. As a former prosecutor, I know first hand the power of a subpoena and I am concerned about the potential for abuse in the current system.

"Given these concerns, please provide the following **documents and narrative responses to the Subcommittee no later than Thursday, August 14, 2003."

**Documents and narrative responses requested......

Copies of all subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers (ISP) requesting information about subscribers;

A description of the standard the RIAA is using when filing an application for a subpoena against an ISP with a US District Court;

A description of the methodology it's using to secure evidence of potentially illegal file sharing by computer users;

A description of the privacy safeguards the RIAA uses when securing this information in an effort to prevent unfair targeting of de minimus users; and,

A description of how it's, "protecting the rights of individuals from erroneous subpoenas".

31-07-03, 08:16 PM	#7
scooobiedooobie Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 381	This is the entire letter that Sen. Coleman sent...... "On June 25, 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced plans to file "thousands of lawsuits charging individual peer-to-peer music distributors with copyright infringement." "According to press reports, the RIAA has won at least 911 subpoenas since June 26, 2003 in order to garner information for the civil lawsuits that could be filed against consumers who are alleged to have illegally used file-sharing programs. These lawsuits would seek civil penalties from $750 to $150,000 per song. The RIAA asserts that only those who traffic in 'substantial' numbers of files will be targeted. "However, when filing an application for a subpoena, the RIAA does not differentiate between nominal file sharers and those who trade dozens or hundreds of files. Subpoenas have been won for computer users who shared as few as five songs. "The RIAA subpoenas have snared unsuspecting grandparents whose grandchildren have used their personal computers, individuals whose roommates have shared their computers, as well as colleges and universities across the United States like Boston College, DePaul University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Individuals like Bob Barnes, a grandfather from Fresno, California, are not immune from devastating financial loses. Mr. Barnes is facing $45 million in penalties for downloading some of his 'oldie' favorites. "This barrage of RIAA subpoenas is creating such a backlog at the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, that the Court has been forced to reassign clerks to process the paperwork. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the D.C. District Courthouse is 'functioning more like a clearing house, issuing subpoenas for all over the country.' "Surely it was not Congress’ intent when it passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to short-circuit due process protections, relegate a U.S. District Court to providing 'rubber-stamp' subpoenas, enable the music industry to collect information about consumers with little or no restrictions, and place numerous average consumers at risk of bankruptcy. "The industry has legitimate concerns about copyright infringement. It is imperative to note that we are dealing with stealing artists’ songs and the industry’s profits. The industry has every right to develop practical remedies for protecting its rights. Yet, the industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may simply have been victims of circumstance, or possessed a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files. I am sure it is not the industry’s intent to needlessly cause harm in its efforts to legally protect its rights. Yet, the law of unintended consequences may be at work in this matter. "As you may know, I have an abiding interest in protecting the privacy rights of individuals. Clearly, I do not condone illegal activity, however I am confident that there may be a more circumspect and narrowly tailored method that RIAA could utilize to prevent substantial illegal file sharing. As a former prosecutor, I know first hand the power of a subpoena and I am concerned about the potential for abuse in the current system. "Given these concerns, please provide the following documents and narrative responses to the Subcommittee no later than Thursday, August 14, 2003." Documents and narrative responses requested...... Copies of all subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers (ISP) requesting information about subscribers; A description of the standard the RIAA is using when filing an application for a subpoena against an ISP with a US District Court; A description of the methodology it's using to secure evidence of potentially illegal file sharing by computer users; A description of the privacy safeguards the RIAA uses when securing this information in an effort to prevent unfair targeting of de minimus users; and, A description of how it's, "protecting the rights of individuals from erroneous subpoenas". Last edited by scooobiedooobie : 31-07-03 at 08:31 PM.