OFF: "Pirates" clamp-down

[Robert C. Mayo]

WASHINGTON (Jan. 22) - A federal judge's decision significantly raises the
risks for computer users who illegally trade music or movies on the Internet,
making it much simpler for the entertainment industry to tie a digital
pirate's online activities to his real-world identity.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled Tuesday that Verizon Communications
Inc. must identify an Internet subscriber suspected of illegally offering
more than 600 songs from top artists. He said Verizon argued a ''strained
reading'' of U.S. law and that its courtroom argument ''makes little sense
from a policy standpoint.''

The Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the
largest music labels, had sought the user's identity with a subpoena approved
under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The law doesn't require a
judge's permission for such subpoenas, a central complaint in the dispute.

The ruling means consumers using dozens of popular Internet file-sharing
programs can more easily be identified and tracked by copyright owners. Even
for consumers hiding behind hard-to-decipher aliases, that could result in
warning letters, civil lawsuits or even criminal prosecution.

Verizon promised to appeal and said it would not immediately disclose its
customer's identity. The ruling had ''troubling ramifications'' for future
growth of the Internet, said Verizon's associate general counsel, Sarah B.
Deutsch.

''The case clearly allows anyone who claims to be a copyright holder to make
an allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private
subscriber information without protections afforded by the courts,'' she
said.

Deutsch said Verizon planned no immediate changes to disrupt sharing of
computer files among its customers.

Cary Sherman, president of the recording association, said piracy is a
''serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners, and
the record companies have made great strides in addressing this problem by
educating consumers and providing them with legitimate alternatives.''

The judge acknowledged the case was an important test of new subpoena powers
Congress granted copyright holders. He said the 1998 law permits music
companies to force Internet providers to turn over the name of a suspected
pirate upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a
judge's order.

Critics of the procedure said judges ought to be more directly involved,
given the potential privacy issues involved when a corporation is asked to
reveal personal information about customers over an allegation of wrongdoing.

''This puts a huge burden on Internet service providers,'' said Harris
Miller, head of the Washington-based Information Technology Association of
America, a trade group. ''It turns them into judge, jury and executioner just
because someone makes an allegation about a problem.''

The entertainment industry traditionally has fought illegal trading by suing
companies that operated file-sharing networks. But technology has made it
possible to decentralize these networks, allowing users to trade from
computer to computer without a service like Napster's.

In response, the industry has increasingly worked to trace users
individually, either threatening them into shutting down their collections or
persuading Internet providers to pull the plug. It also has resorted to
seeding networks with fake files and clogging network connections to
frustrate people looking for free music.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association predicted the music
industry ''will be cranking up its presses pretty quickly'' to send legal
warnings to Internet users sharing songs and movies.

''This has the potential to really mushroom out of control, to be very
burdensome,'' said Will Rodger, a spokesman for the computer group, whose
membership includes one firm, Streamcast Networks Inc., that distributes
file-sharing software.

Napster, the Web site that led the way for computer users to swap recordings
for free, has been down since July 2001, when a judge found that its
operations violated copyright law and ordered it to remove copyright
recordings.