The New York Times reports that the US Court of Appeals has held that copyright owners cannot force internet service providers to disclose information about downloaders without a court order approved by a judge. A previous district court decision had allowed owners to compel the disclosure of downloaders’ information after presenting a subpoena submitting to a court clerk without the need for a judge's approval. RIAA has condemned the decision, saying that it will no longer be able to warn people that it is considering bringing action against in advance, giving them the opportunity to settle. Instead, it claims that it will have to bring John Doe cases against anonymous downloaders and only actually make personal contact once court proceedings are under way and their identities are unmasked.
The IPKat welcomes the decision. He things that downloading copyright-protected music isn’t a good (or legal) idea, but that this doesn’t justify the suspension of due process of law in tracing downloaders.
Full text of the decision (via the Trademark Blog) here
John Does isn’t as anonymous as he’d like – meet him here, here, here and here
The IPKat welcomes the decision. He things that downloading copyright-protected music isn’t a good (or legal) idea, but that this doesn’t justify the suspension of due process of law in tracing downloaders.
Full text of the decision (via the Trademark Blog) here
John Does isn’t as anonymous as he’d like – meet him here, here, here and here
US DECISION TAKES A (DOWN)LOAD OFF ISPS' MINDS
![US DECISION TAKES A (DOWN)LOAD OFF ISPS' MINDS]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html