In Re Charter Communications, Inc.

In re Charter Communications, Inc. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005) Key Search Terms: copyright, piracy, notification, safe harbors, subpoena power Facts The dispute arose when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) requested the clerk of the district court to issue subpoenas under section 512(h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to Charter Communications in its capacity as an internet service provider (ISP). Charter is a cable company which offers broadband internet access. After A&M Records v. Napster, a new type of peer-to-peer (P2P) emerged in which copyrighted materials were stored on users computers rather than a central library on a website. Charter’s role in helping to disseminate the alleged copyrighted material is confined to acting as a conduit in the transfer of files through its network. Under section 512(h) of the DMCA, the RIAA obtained subpoenas from the clerk of the District Court requiring Charter to produce the names, physical addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of approximately 200 of Charter’s subscribers. Charter filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the District Court’s order, but the District Court declined to stay its order. Thus Charter turned over the subpoenaed information to the RIAA. Issue Should Charter, as an ISP who only transmitted copyrighted material, be forced to follow the subpoena? Holding The DCMA provides four safe harbors. The pertinent one to this case, section 512(a), limits the liability of ISPs when they do nothing more than transit, route, or provide connections for copyrighted material. Section 512(h) of the DMCA has a notification provision before offending ISPs can be subpoenaed to provide information about their users. Charter correctly contended that this provision does not apply to ISPs whom merely act as a conduit for data transferred between two internet users. Thus, the subpoena was not properly issued. Citing a District of Columbia Circuit court, this Court reasoned that section 512(h) does not authorize the subpoenas because the ISP “cannot remove or disable [a requirement of section 512(c)(3)(A)(iii)] one user’s access to infringing material resident on another user’s computer.” Because both parties agree that Charter acts merely as a conduit, the Court held that section 512(h) does not authorize the subpoenas issued here. Accordingly, the order of the District Court enforcing various subpoenas is vacated. The Eighth Circuit remanded on other issues.

Summarized by: Brian Raterman