The U.S. Court of Appeals just handed down a decision today reversing the earlier District Court ruling that required Verizon to release the identities of suspected file sharers.
From the decision: "We conclude from both the terms of s 512(h) and the overall structure of s 512 that, as Verizon contends, a subpoena may be issued only to an ISP engaged in storing on its servers material that is infringing or the subject of infringing activity."
There is a ton of good coverage on Google News right now, listed under the science & technology topic. ZDNet has a FAQ for filesharers. The article also includes a link to the decision (pdf).
May only slow them down
As president of the RIAA Cary Sherman has made clear, It unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation. Verizon is solely responsible for a legal process that will now be less sensitive to the interests of its subscribers who engage in illegal activity (InternetNews).
So instead of filing a subpoena, finding out the file trader's identity, and threatening to sue, they'll just go ahead and file the suit. The question is whether they can then subpoena the ISP for the identity once the suit is filed.
Great quote
Not often, I imagine, that we'll see a quote like this in an analysis from a federal appeals court judge. As noted by Lessig, in referring to the RIAA's case, Judge Ginsburg said, "This argument borders upon the silly."
Spin?
Seems to me that the argument being forwarded by the RIAA here incorporates some serious spin, and that to follow through would only further damage an already beleaguered public reputation.
Additionally, some coverage I've seen points to the importance of the grounds for the decision: incorrect application of a statute, instead of constitutionality - with the implication that changes to the statute might be in the offing, as well.
So, yeah, this may only temporarily slow down the RIAA.