Pa. court extends privacy rights of Web file sharers

An Oct. 12 ruling in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania has afforded additional privacy rights to would-be defendants of copyright infringement lawsuits in the Philadelphia area.

The ruling was brought on by a "John Doe" recording industry lawsuit against six anonymous Penn students. Stymied by other recent court orders, the Recording Industry Association of America has turned to suing suspected copyright infringers using these so-called "John Doe" lawsuits against users identified only by their computer's Internet protocol address.

According to the October court order from U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, Internet service providers must give accused file sharers 21 days' notice before their names are turned over to recording industry lawyers.

The three-week waiting period will allow the accused persons time to start proceedings, if they should wish.

Additionally, the ruling forces ISPs to provide detailed notices explaining legal rights accorded to the accused, including information on contesting the subpoena through legal routes or settling out of court.

"If you file a motion to quash the subpoena, your identity will not be disclosed until the motion is resolved, and the companies cannot proceed against you until you are identified," reads the notice. "If you do not file a motion to quash at the end of the 21-day period, your ISP will send the record company plaintiffs your identification information."

Currently, recording industry lawyers do send out similar notices to defendants, but in these cases, their identities are already known.

The RIAA points out that this decision does not change their position at all.

"We have always encouraged ISPs to inform their subscribers of pending subpoenas. This action by the court is consistent with that," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman.

However, he also noted that "nothing in the court's directive absolves an illegal file sharer from liability under the copyright laws." The decision merely increases the privacy rights accorded to the accused.

Though the decision does not change positions of liability for defendants, it does force ISPs and the RIAA to proceed in these cases with a greater respect for privacy rights.

Public rights and privacy advocates -- including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union -- were involved in the case as friends of the court and lauded the ruling.

"By requiring ISPs to include basic information such as the right to challenge lawsuits and where to go for help, the court took a big step toward helping people understand their options," said Cindy Cohn, the legal director for EFF.

The Penn chapter of the ACLU also applauded the opinion but warned that there was still significant work to be done.

"It's very important to consider the privacy of the accused. It's a lot better that defendants are given more time to respond, but the larger problem is the method by which the RIAA is going after the accused," said Michael Patterson, president of the Penn ACLU chapter.

The decision may potentially affect other RIAA file-sharing lawsuits against Internet users at Penn and other Philadelphia institutions, as well as against hundreds of customers of Philadelphia-based ISP Comcast Corporation.

In related events, the RIAA filed 750 new "John Doe" litigations in October, including action against 25 users of university networks.

The RIAA also filed against 213 "named defendants" in several states, including Pennsylvania. An RIAA press release describes these cases as involving "individuals who were already identified through the legal process and then declined or ignored an RIAA overture to settle the case before it proceeded any further."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.