The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal judge to quash a Recording Industry Association of America subpoena demanding Boston College give up a female senior suspected of pirating songs for online distribution.
The ACLU filed the request September 29, saying in the filing that the subpoena is unconstitutional and violates due process. Their primary concern is protecting the right of online privacy, the group said.
“We’re not saying the recording industry shouldn’t go after file sharers, only that they must do so in a way that’s fair,” said ACLU staff attorney Christopher Hanson, which led the filing. “There are lots of reasons why people need anonymity online and why it should not be so easy to lose. If the recording industry can uncover your identity simply by claiming that a copyright violation has occurred, then the Chinese government can use the same tool to find out the name of a dissident, and a batterer can use it to find out the address of a domestic violence shelter.”
Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, copyright holders have very wide latitude to demand Internet service providers or networks give up subscriber or user names suspected of trading copyright material unlawfully, but critics of the RIAA, the movie industry, and others pursuing the file swappers through the legal system have accused those industries of doing it so cavalierly that they are neglecting legitimate privacy issues.
Adult video producer Titan Media, while mounting its own campaign against illegal swapping of its films and videos online, has made a particular point of stressing that while they do pursue a suspected swapper, they stop just short of demanding the swapper's identity be exposed beyond the limits of the transaction in question.
The RIAA defends itself by saying the big need is to slow the free sharing of digital music online while music sales have slumped 31 percent in the past three years. But more and more critics – like U.S. Senators Norman Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), both of whom have held or will hold committee hearings on the issues – are saying the music industry crossed the line between legitmate redress and outright harassment and civil rights violations.
The ACLU joined the law firm of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye in filing for the Boston College woman. "The recording industry cannot simply demand our client's identity without first complying with constitutional requirements," her attorney, David Plotkin, said. "Our system mandates that people accused of wrongdoing, be it criminal violations or copyright infringement, be provided due process of law. That is all our client seeks here."
Coleman, in fact, planned a September 30 hearing of his Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the file-swapping subpoena and related issues, after first promising such hearing during the summer. Himself a former Napster user, Coleman and his subcommittee plan to hear comments from some of the heavier players in this controversy, from new RIAA chairman Mitch Bainwol to Motion Picture Association of America president Jack Valenti.
"I come back to basic concerns about how the industry is making an example of a few people using broad power that is essentially unregulated," Coleman said in a statement, while noting that not only was he a former P2Per but his teenage son had been, too, until told to stop by his father. "It puts people in fear of draconian penalties to settle up on something they may or may not have done."
.
