RIAA issued subpoenas to Verizon for the names of certain users for whom they had IP addresses. Verizon moved to have the subpoenas held invalid on the grounds that a "safe harbor" provision in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act for telecommunications providers frees them of any obligation to cooperate. Trial court rejected argument and told Verizon to produce names.
On appeal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that Verizon does fall within the safe harbor provision because the records sought dealt with its role as a transmitter of data (one of the safe harbor provisions), rahter than its role as a storer of data (where they would have had to remove the information from their system under the law).
Opinion here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/riaaverizon121903.pdf Several notes:
1. Court says this is issue for Congress to decide. In other words, this was a statutory interpretation, not Constitutional matter. And Congress can change the law tomorrow.
2. The decision only applies to DC,not anywhere else in the country. While this opinion will be influential, there is at least a potential for other circuits to interpret the DMCA subpoena provision differently.
3. The author of the opinion was Douglas Ginsburg, the former nominee to the US Supreme Court who had a little marijuana issue derail his nomination many years ago.
Do you have a reference to the definition of "telecommunications provider" with respect to the DMCA? I remember that Napster could not claim "safe harbor" protection.