ORAL ARGUMENT

WAS HEARD ON SEPTEMBER Nos. 03-7015 and 03-7053

16, 2003

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN RE: VERIZON Subpoena

INTERNET Enforcement

SERVICES, Matter

INC.

RECORDING

INDUSTRY

ASSOCIATION

OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

VERIZON

INTERNET

SERVICES,

INC.,

Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

PETITION

OF APPELLEE RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC

OF AMERICA

Of Counsel: Matthew J. Oppenheim Stanley Pierre-Louis RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036

* Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. Thomas J. Perrelli Jared O. Freedman JENNER & BLOCK LLP 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 639-6000 Fax: (202) 639-6066

Dated:

February

2, 2004

* Counsel of Record

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... I. II. ii 1

The Panel's Decision Involves a Question of Exceptional Importance ............................... 1 The Panel Misinterpreted § 512(h) ...................................................................................... 9 15

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................

TABLE

OF AUTHORITIES* CASES

Alabama

Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 1994) .......................................................... Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983) ........................

12 9 10 12 12 10 5 7

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Carson Harbor

Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................... v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) ........................................... 498 U.S. 337 (1991) ................................................

Community for Creative Non-Violence McDermott International, Defense

Inc. v. Wilander,

NaturalResources

Council, Inc. v. EPA, 907 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ..................... 532 U.S. 661 (2001) ..............................................................................

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, Playboy Enterprises,

Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993) ....................................... Inc. v. Russ Hardenbaugh,

Playboy Enterprises, Religious

Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ohio 1997) .......... 7

Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ......................................................................................... Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 857 F. Supp. 679 (N.D. Cal. 1994) .......................................... City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) .................................

7 7 9 9 11 13 11 7 7 12

Sega Enterprises

Sony Corp. of A merica v. Universal Twentieth

Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975) ......................................................

Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) ................................................................................................ United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994) .........................................................................

United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................... United States v. Stowe, No. 96C2702, 1996 WL 467238 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 1996) .......................

United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002) .............................................................................................. In re Verizon Internet Services Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003) .........................

4, 9, 10, 14

*Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks. ii

STATUTES "17 U.S.C. § 512 .................................................................................................................... 17 U.S.C. § 512(a) ................................................................................................................. 17 U.S.C. § 512(b) ................................................................................................................. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ................................................................................................................. 17 U.S.C. § 512(d) ................................................................................................................. "17 U.S.C. § 512(h) ............................................................................................................... 17 U.S.C. § 5120) ...................................................................................................................... 17 U.S.C. § 5120) ............................................................................................................................ 17 U.S.C. § 512(k) ......................................................................................................................... 17 U.S.C. § 512(n) ......................................................................................................................... LEGISLATIVE MATERIAL 14 passim 2, 5, 13 2, 3, 13 passim 2, 3, 13 passim 5, 12 5 12 13

H. Rep. No. 105-551(II) (1998) ..................................................................................................... S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998) .............................................................................................

1, 2, 13, 14

The Copyright Infringement Liability of Online and Internet Service Providers: Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (Sept. 4, 1997) ................ 5 Copyright Piracy, and H.R. 2265, The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (Sept. 11, 1997) ................................................................ 6, 7, 8 Nil Copyright Protection Act of 1995 (Part II): Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (Feb. 7-8, 1996) .......................................................................................................... Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (Sept. 16-17, 1997) ........................................................................................................ Statement by Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. (Sept. 9, 2003) available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat090903.html .....................................................

6, 8

6

1

111

MISCELLANEOUS Mark Eckenweiler & Benjamin Wittes, Cyberspace's Lingua Franca, Legal Times, Jan. 23, 1995.......................................................................................................................... Andrew Leonard, Mutiny on the Net, Salon, March 1998, available at http://archive.salon.com/21 st/feature/1998/03/cov_20feature.html

7

.............................. 7

Pew Internet & American Life Project, The Impact of Recording Suite Against Music File Swappers (Jan. 2004) at http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/ PIP_File_Swapping_Memo_0104.pdf ........................................................................... Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993) .................................................................

1 12

iv

The Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") respectfully submits this petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40. RIAA seeks further review because this case involves a question of exceptional importance under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). In a case of

first impression, the panel sharply restricted the scope of the subpoena authority Congress conferred in 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), rendering that authority useless as a practical matter and defeating one of the essential objectives of the DMCA. The panel's misreading of the statutory text produced a result that is irreconcilable with the Act's overall structure and purposes - and that flatly contradicts the position of the Copyright Office of the United States. 1 If left undisturbed, the decision threatens to curtail efforts by the recording industry to combat Internet piracy that is decimating the industry - efforts that were just beginning to bear fruit. 2 ARGUMENT I. The Panel's Decision Involves a Question of Exceptional Importance. Congress enacted the DMCA to combat the emerging reality of"massive piracy" of copyrighted works on the Internet. S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 8 (1998) ("S. Rep."). Congress was concerned that this piracy would hobble the Internet for two reasons: (1) Internet service providers ("ISPs") would refrain from investing because of the threat of substantial liability for infringement committed by their subscribers, and (2) copyright owners would hesitate to make works available online because of the ease with which digital works can be pirated. Icl. Title II of the DMCA, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512, addresses both concerns. Section 512 confers upon 1 See Statement by Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. (Sept. 9, 2003) (http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat090903.html). 2 See Pew Internet &American Life Project, The Impact of Recording Industry Suits Against Music File Swappers (Jan. 2004) (reporting that the number of Americans downloading music files dropped by half since the recording industry began filings law suits against individual infringers) (http://www.pewintemet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_File_Swapping_Memo_0104.pdf).

ISPs certain limitations on liability, the terms of which vary according to the function the ISP performs. §§ 512(a)-(d). In exchange, Congress required ISPs to cooperate with copyright owners to combat piracy and act swiftly when notified of infringement being committed by users of their network. See S. Rep. at 40. The core of the congressional bargain struck in § 512 is that copyright owners should seek redress in the first instance against infringing users, not ISPs, and that ISPs must facilitate copyright owners' efforts to do so. For copyright owners to enforce their rights, however, they need to learn the identities of those infringing their copyrights on the Internet, usually anonymously. To achieve the DMCA's goals, Congress authorized copyright owners to obtain

this information from ISPs. Thus, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(h)(1), a copyright owner may obtain from a district court clerk a "subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer" using the ISP's network. Section 512(h) also imposes numerous safeguards, requiring copyright owners to specify their claims of infringement, limiting the information that may be obtained by means of the subpoena, and restricting the use of information obtained by the copyright owner. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(h)(2)(A), (h)(3) & (h)(2)(C). Section 512(h) subpoenas are critical to copyright owners' efforts to protect their rights in the Internet age. As the panel acknowledged, "[t]he stakes are large for the music, motion picture, and software industries." RIAA v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., No. 03-7015 at 15 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2003) ("Slip op."). More than two billion infringing music files are downloaded each month on peer-to-peer ("P2P") systems such as KaZaA. See RIAA Br. at 2. This massive piracy has cost the music industry billions in lost revenues. Id. The infringement takes place in broad daylight - every day millions of infringers upload and download copyrighted files on P2P networks, shielded by the anonymity of an alias and an Internet Protocol ("IP") address.

2

Copyright owners can observe this infringement and can ascertain the IP addresses of infringers. Only ISPs, however, can identify the actual persons committing infringement. by the ISP, copyright owners are powerless to take action. This appeal arises out of RIAA's effort to use § 512(h) subpoenas to obtain the identities of two individuals using Verizon's network to disseminate hundreds of copyrighted works without authorization. Id. at 6-7 (citing J.A. 81,233-34). Reversing the district court, the panel Absent disclosure

held that Congress authorized § 512(h) subpoenas only when infringers store infringing material on an ISP's network, and not when (as is often the case in P2P networks) such material is stored on the subscribers' home computers and disseminated over the ISP's network, i.e., when the ISP is acting as a mere "conduit." Slip. op. at 7. The panel identified no direct instruction from Congress restricting the subpoena authority in that manner. Rather, the panel limited § 512(h) on the basis of an inference drawn from a cross-reference in § 512(h) to another subsection of § 512. As will be shown infra, the panel's interpretation rests on fundamental errors of statutory construction. The panel's decision is worthy of further review, however, not merely because it was wrong but because the panel's errors will eviscerate § 512(h), and with it the underlying purposes of § 512. The panel authorized § 512(h) subpoenas where the DMCA gives copyright owners another remedy (seeking removal of the infringing material or links to the infringing material stored on the ISP's network, see § 512(b), (c), (d)), but eliminated their availability where they are needed most, i.e., where the copyright owner's only option for stopping the infringement is a direct suit against the infringer. 3 Even worse, the limited subpoena power the panel preserved is of little value. Typically, an ISP storing infringing material on a website or

3 If the ISP does not store, cache, or link to the infringing material, the copyright owner cannot benefit from the "notice and take down" provisions contained in §§ 512(b), (c) and (d) to stop ongoing infringement. 3

bulletin board does not know the identity of individuals who post infringing material; those ISPs simply post information sent by others. Only ISPs that provide the initial Internet access know who the infringer (the sender) is. Under the panel's interpretation, however, copyright owners can subpoena only ISPs that cannot identify the infringers, not the ISPs that can. Because the vast majority of digital piracy involves P2P networks, the panel's misreading of § 512(h) will subvert the balanced objectives of the DMCA. Copyright owners will be prevented from asserting their rights directly against infringing users. At the same time, ISPs will benefit in two ways: they will profit handsomely from illegal downloading over high-end broadband services, see RIAA Br. at 3 (noting that over half the capacity of broadband networks are consumed by P2P users), and will receive the DMCA's limitations on liability without the concomitant obligation to do the most important thing they can do to stop infringement over their networks - identify the infringers. Congress could not possibly have intended this result. The district court found "no sound reason why Congress would enable a copyright owner to obtain identifying information from a service provider storing infringing material on its system, but would not enable a copyright owner to obtain identifying information from a service provider transmitting the material over its system." In re Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 24, 35 (D.D.C. 2003). For its part, the panel never supplied any substantive explanation for this irrational result. Regardless of whether an ISP transmits or stores infringing material, the damage to the copyright owner from the infringement is the same (irreparable), the subscriber's conduct is the same (unlawful), and the burden on the ISP to identify the infringer is the same (minimal). While there may be a rationale for Congress's decision to give conduit ISPs a broader limitation on liability than ISPs storing infringing material, there is no such rationale for treating ISPs differently when it comes to identifying infringers. Id. at 35.

4

The panel's only defense of its constricted reading is its claim that "the legislative history of the DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works." Slip op. at 14. Even if that assertion were correct (and it is not), it fails as a justification. At the insistence oflSPs, Congress drafted the DMCA

broadly to ensure that it would not be immediately outmoded by changes in technology. See The Copyright Infringement Liability of Online and Internet Service Providers: Hearing before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 23, 25-26 (Sept. 4, 1997) (ISP testimony advocating for a statute drafted by "function" which would be more adaptable to technological change). The whole point of the DMCA was to provide broad, enduring rules for the future, and thus to avoid the necessity of ongoing legislative revision. See generally, PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661,689 (2001). In any case, the text and legislative history of § 512 refute the panel's assumption. Section § 512(a) - the provision for which ISPs fought the hardest - was designed to cover certain situations in which the ISP serves only as a "conduit" for Internet users "directly... exchang[ing] files containing copyrighted works." Slip op. at 14. ISPs would not have feared derivative liability in these circumstances unless their subscribers were using the "conduit" to commit infringement. Moreover, in § 512(i), Congress conditioned the limitations of liabilityincluding the § 512(a) limitation for conduit functions that do not involve storage - on ISPs enforcing a policy of terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. Similarly, § 512(j) specifically provides for injunctive relief against ISPs to block infringement by subscribers even where the infringing material resides on the subscriber's computer. These provisions presuppose users "directly... exchang[ing]" copyrighted works over an ISP's conduit facilities.

The legislative history similarly demonstrates that Congress contemplated, and legislated against, infringing activity where materials are stored on subscribers' computers and merely transmitted by ISPs. The legislative record is replete with concerns that individuals would engage in wide-ranging copyright infringement using the conduit facilities of ISPsfrom their home computers. The most obvious of those is e-mail, a technology in wide use when the DMCA was enacted in 1998. Congress heard testimony about the "growing use of 'blanket' email messages" to commit copyright infringement and about a specific infringer using e-mail (and attachments thereto) to disseminate 150 copyrighted software programs. 4 One songwriter explained to Congress the problems copyright owners faced from e-mail distribution systems because ISPs had no obligation to reveal the identities of e-mail customers committing copyright infringement, absent a court order. 5 In this regard, the panel erred in contending that Congress was concerned only with File Transfer Protocol ("FTP") sites and Bulletin Board Services ("BBS") stored on the systems of ISPs, and with rogue ISPs. Slip op. at 14. Congress knew in 1998 that FTP sites and BBS services (precursors to P2P services) on home computers were engines of copyright piracy. 6 The

4 Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 172, 175 (Sept. 16-17 1997) (statement of Ronald Dunn, President of the Information Industry Association); NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995 (Part 2)- Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 84, 88 (Feb. 7-8, 1996) (statement of Garry L. McDaniels on behalf of the Software Publishers Association). See also Copyright Piracy, and H.R. 2265, The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act."Hearing Before the House Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 17-18 (Sept. 11, 1997) (statement of Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice) (describing use of e-mail to commit infringement of software programs). 5 See Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 156, 160 (Sept. 16-17, 1997) (statement of Allee Willis, songwriter). 6 The panel appears to have believed incorrectly that FTP sites and BBS sites resided only on servers maintained by ISPs. Slip op. at 14. Rather, many FTP and BBS sites were located on

cases cited most prominently in hearings and in the House and Senate reports involved BBS services operated from home computers. See, e.g., Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-line Communication Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1365-66 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (describing BBS operated at home and linked to the Internet by an ISP) (cited at S. Rep. at 19 n.20); Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552, 1555-56 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (BBS operated from individual's own computer) (cited at S. Rep. at 19 n.20); Sega Enters. Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 857 F. Supp. 679, 682 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (computer servers for infringing BBS located in defendant's residence); Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Russ Hardenbaugh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503,507 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (describing FBI seizure of BBS equipment from defendant's premises), z The Department of Justice testified concerning infringement committed from FTP and BBS sites run on home computers. See Copyright Piracy, and H.R. 2265, The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 17-18 (Sept. 11, 1997) (statement of Kevin DiGregory, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice). Indeed, the Department was already prosecuting criminal copyright infringers operating BBS services from their homes. See, e.g., United States v. Stowe, No. 96C2702, 1996 WL 467238 at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 1996). In all of these situations - well-known to Congress when it enacted the DMCA - only the conduit ISP that provides access to the Internet can identify the infringer. At least one major ISP recognized this problem and proposed that, in exchange for limitations on liability, ISPs should

home computers. See Andrew Leonard, Mutiny on the Net, Salon, March 1998, available at http://archive.salon.com/21 st/feature/1998/03/cov_20feature.html (FTP software "allows anyone with a computer and a modem to make [pirated music] files on their home computer accessible to the rest of the Net"); Mark Eckenweiler & Benjamin Wittes, Cyberspace's Lingua Franca, Legal Times, Jan. 23, 1995 ("[m]any BBS's are operated by hobbyists off of home computers"). 7 By 1998, BBS services operated out of people's homes were a also a haven for obscenity and child pornography. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701,705 (6th Cir. 1996) (describing obscene bulletin board operated from home since 1991).

be required, "[i]n those cases where the allegedly infringing content is not on facilities controlled by the lISP] .... [to] take[] reasonable steps to assist the copyright owner in identifying the party

that does control the hosting facility (upon receipt of a subpoena if necessary)." Nil Copyright Protection Act of 1995: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House. Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 261 (Feb. 7-8, 1996) (testimony of Stephen M. Heaton, General Counsel of Compuserve, Inc.). The overriding theme of the legislative record is that with the expanding power of personal computers and rapidly increasing bandwidth, anyone would be able to perpetrate massive copyright infringement. See Copyright Piracy, and H.R. 2265, The No Electronic Theft

(NET) Act: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (Sept. 11, 1997) (Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights) (noting how "a disgruntled former employee, a dissatisfied customer, [or] an Internet user opposed to the fundamental concept of copyright law" can "inflict tremendous damage to the market for a copyrighted work"). The panel was thus fundamentally in error in concluding that users "directly... exchang[ing]" copyright works (such as through

P2P infringement) was an unforeseen risk when Congress enacted the DMCA. Rather, Congress fully understood the crippling piracy that already beset the music industry (among others) and that would only get worse. In the DMCA, Congress acted to give copyright owners the tools to stop such piracy, wherever the infringing material was stored. The panel's opinion strips copyright owners of one of the most essential of these tools. Finally, in assessing the need for further review, it is important to recall that the ill effects of the panel's decision are not confined to copyright owners. Enforcing copyright laws serves the public interest, because "the ultimate aim" of the copyright laws is "to stimulate artistic

creativity for the general public good." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975); see Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984) Indeed, "it is virtually axiomatic that the public interest can only be served by upholding copyright protections and, correspondingly, preventing the misappropriation of the skills, creative energies, and resources which are invested in the protected work." Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1255 (3d Cir. 1983) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The panel's decision threatens to allow literally billions of copyright violations to continue. That is plainly a massive harm to the public interest. II. The Panel Misinterpreted § 512(h). Despite expressing regret for the harmful consequences of restricting § 512(h), the panel believed that the plain meaning of the statutory text compelled that result. The panel's reading, however, rests on fundamental errors of statutory construction. Once those errors are brought into focus, and the provisions on which the panel relied are read in light of the overall structure and purposes of the DMCA, it should be clear that the panel misread § 512(h). Section 512(h) does not impose any direct limitations on a copyright owner's ability to obtain DMCA subpoenas. As the district court observed, had Congress wanted to limit § 512(h)

to exclude conduit providers, it could easily have done so directly. Congress "could have stated such a limitation in subsection (h), or stated that subsection (h) does not apply to subsections (a), (b), or (d), or even have placed the subpoena authority itself within subsection (c). But Congress did not do so." 240 F. Supp. 2d at 33. According to the panel, Congress chose the peculiar mechanism of an implied limitation based on the cross-reference to subsection (c)(3)(A). Section § 512(h)(2)(A) requires a copyright owner seeking a DMCA subpoena to provide the ISP with "a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A)." Although a copyright owner

seeking the identity of a subscriber using a P2P system can indisputably satisfy the other prerequisites listed in § 512(c)(3)(A), the panel concluded that one such prerequisite could never be satisfied - namely, "[i]dentification of the material that is claimed to be infringing.., and that

is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to locate the material." § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii). The panel believed that an "ISP can neither 'remove'

nor 'disable access to' the infringing material" when it resides on a subscriber's computer rather than the ISP's network. Slip op. at 9-10. For this reason, and this reason alone, the panel concluded that the cross-reference to § 512(c)(3)(A) necessarily meant that § 512(h) subpoenas could not issue unless infringing material is stored on the ISP's network. The panel, however, erred in concluding that an ISP cannot "disable access" to material residing on a subscriber's computer, and that error was the product of the panel's misuse of a canon of statutory construction. The panel rejected the district court's common-sense conclusion

that an ISP "certainly can disable access to the material by terminating the account altogether." 240 F. Supp. 2d at 33 n.5. The panel noted that the DMCA uses the words "disable access" and "terminat[e]" distinctly elsewhere in § 512 (specifically in § 512(j), which governs the scope of permissible injunctions), and invoked the canon that different terms used in a statute are presumed to have different meanings. Slip op. at 10. In so doing, the panel ignored the possibility that the terms have distinct, yet overlapping meanings. Yet that is a common occurrence. Courts have routinely recognized that even distinct

statutory terms can have an overlapping or common meaning. See, e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council Inc. v. EPA, 907 F.2d 1146, 1163 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (rejecting argument that terms cannot have overlapping meaning where "the language of the definitions does not explicitly indicate that they are to be mutually exclusive"); Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.,

10

270 F.3d 863,882 (9th Cir. 2001) (concluding that "there is at least substantial overlap between" two terms used in the same statute and "reject[ing] the interpretation that the difference in the definitions requires us to... make the terms mutually exclusive"); United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d

1477, 1482-83 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that two terms in the same provision "must have different meanings," but concluding nonetheless "that there is considerable overlap between the two terms"). As the Supreme Court has said, "Congress... statute." Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 664 (2001) Thus, the canon that different terms in a statute are presumed to have different meanings does not eliminate the need to give each term its ordinary meaning, even if those ordinary meanings overlap to some extent. In the DMCA, Congress used terms that have such an overlap and did so purposefully. The objective of disabling access to infringing material is to prevent the outside world from accessing that material. Terminating a subscriber's account achieves that objective. The DMCA authorizes the termination of a subscriber's account not simply (as the panel appeared to believe, slip op. at 10) as a punishment to prevent the infringer from accessing the Intemet to surf the World Wide Web. Rather, it is a remedy for the copyright owner to prevent others from gaining access to infringing material (either by accessing the subscriber's computer or receiving a transmission from the subscriber). Whether infringing material is stored on a website hosted by an ISP or on a home computer, in each case it is connected to the Internet (and to the world-at-large) by the ISP's facilities. In either situation, tuming offthe connection to the Intemet prevents others from accessing it and thus "disables access" to the infringing material. Indeed, were Verizon ever sued for copyright infringement arising out of the conduct of a subscriber whose account it had terminated, it would certainly claim that terminating the subscriber's account satisfied any obligation to disable access to the infringing material. is permitted to use synonyms in a

11

Similarly, the panel was wrong in drawing from § 5120) the proposition that disabling access and terminating must have mutually exclusive meanings. If an ISP under an injunction to disable access to infringing material were to terminate the account of the subscriber, there is no doubt the ISP would be in compliance with the injunction -thus proving that, as used in § 512(j), the terms "disable access" and "terminat[e]" do not have mutually exclusive meanings. The district court read the statute correctly. The court gave the phrases "disable access" and "terminat[e]" their ordinary meanings. To "disable" means to "make incapable or ineffective." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 642 (1993). To "terminate" means See id. at 2359.

"to bring to an ending or cessation in time, sequence or continuity."

Terminating a subscriber's account brings an end to the subscriber's connection to the Intemet and thus makes access to the subscriber's infringing material ineffective, i.e, disabled. In contrast, the panel appears to have created its own specialized technical meaning for each term. Congress, however, did not define "disable access" or "terminate a subscriber's account," and the terms do not have established meanings in the legal or computer fields. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739-40 (1989); McDermott Int 'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 342 (1991). Nor did Congress place the terms in quotation marks, refer to other authorities to define the terms, or indicate that the terms should be given anything other than their ordinary meanings. See Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452, 467 (2002); Alabama Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450, 454 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Indeed, had Congress wanted to give the terms specialized meanings, it demonstrated elsewhere in § 512 that it knew how to do so. See § 512(i)(2) (defining "standard technical measures"), a

8 One other term the Congress expressly defined - twice - is "service provider." § 512(k)(1)(A) & (B). It is crystal clear that Congress intended the term "service provider" as used in subsection (h) to encompass ISPs providing "conduit" functions. See § 512(k)(1)(B). As the 12

In elevating its preferred canon above all others, the panel paid no heed to the "basic principle of statutory construction.., given their ordinary meaning." that where words in a statute are not defined, they must be

United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39, 71 (1994) (internal

quotation and citation omitted). Thus, wholly apart from any consideration of the DMCA's structure and purposes, the panel's reading of the text of § 512 fails on its own terms. The panel's opinion ignores the text, structure, and purposes of§ 512(h). More fundamentally, in narrowly focusing on the cross-reference, the panel's interpretation is unmoored from the text and structure of § 512(h), as well as the structure of § 512 as a whole. The sharp contrast between the broadly worded § 512(h) and the narrowly crafted limitations on liability in subsections (a)-(d) demonstrates that Congress did not intend § 512(h) to be restricted to ISPs that perform specific functions. For each of subsections (a)-(d), Congress specified the functions ISPs must be performing to qualify for a limitation on liability. Each subsection contains prefatory language that clearly and expressly defines a specific ISP function. See, e.g. § 512(a)(1)-(5); § 512(b)(1)(A)-(C). Indeed, Congress established an express rule of

construction making clear the function an ISP performs is critical to determining the application of §§ 512(a)-(d). See § 512(n); S. Rep. at 55 ("Section 512's limitations on liability are based on functions"). That rule of construction applies only to those subsections. S. Rep. at 55

("Subsection [(n)] establishes a rule of construction applicable to subsections (a) through (d)"). Section 512(h) is starkly different. Congress drew no functional distinctions in § 512(h) and included no prefatory language limiting its application to ISPs performing particular functions. Section 512(h) by its terms applies broadly to all ISPs performing all functions. In

district court found, it is deserving of some weight that Congress went out of its way to define the term broadly when it is used subsection (h). Although the panel characterized this argument as "silly," slip op. at 11, it is hard to understand why Congress would have taken such a step if it intended that subsection (h) could never apply to conduit providers, as the panel concluded. 13

this regard, § 512(h) is similar to § 512(i), which also applies to all ISPs, including conduit ISPs. Moreover, § 512(n)'s rule of construction does not apply to § 512(h). Congress could hardly have been more clear that § 512(h) was not limited to ISPs performing a certain set of functions. Nor did Congress anywhere suggest that it intended, as the panel concluded, that subsection (c)(3)(A) drastically restricts the scope of the subpoena provision. Congress made clear that it intended subsection (c)(3)(A) to provide "procedures," not substantive limitations. See H. Rep. No. 105-55 (II) at 55 (1998). Subsection (c)(3)(A) is referenced in numerous subsections within § 512 as a mechanism for providing ISPs with sufficient information to comply with their obligations. In none of those other subsections, however, does it create an

implicit limitation on the scope of the subsection. Cf slip op. at 12-13 (discussing adoption of subsection (c)(3)(A) in subsections (b) and (d)). Nor should it here. The obvious purpose of § 512(h)'s cross-reference to § 512(c)(3)(A) is to provide a means by which the copyright owner establishes its bona tides and communicates the needed information to the ISP. Congress made use of the cross-reference for that reason, and not to limit the substantive scope of § 512(h). 9 Moreover, the limitation that the panel imposed does not appear in subsection (c)(3)(A). The panel held that § 512(h) applies solely when ISPs are storing infringing material. Nothing in subsection (c)(3)(A), however, mentions where infringing material is stored. That requirement is in an entirely different portion of subsection (c) that is not referenced in subsection (h). The effect of the panel's decision is to take a substantive limitation in subsection (c)(1), import that

9 One oddity of the panel's holding that a copyright owner cannot obtain a § 512(h) subpoena because the ISP cannot "disable access" to infringing material is that § 512(h) does not require an ISP to disable access to any material at all. It merely requires the ISP to identify the infringer, something the ISP clearly can do. Indeed, the district court recognized the different purpose fulfilled by subsection (h) and served by subsection (c)(3)(A) by holding that "[t]he requirement for the notification is simply that it identify the infringing material to be removed, not that removal be effectuated." 240 F. Supp. 2d at 33 n.5. 14

limitation by reference into the wholly procedural subsection (c)(3)(A) through the phrase "disable access," and then import it again by reference into subsection (h) - all without any suggestion by Congress (in the text or legislative history) that it intended such a result. Finally, the panel also ignored a provision that speaks directly to the issue in this case. The panel concluded that, because DMCA notifications to conduit ISPs would be ineffective in requiring the ISP to disable access to infringing material, such notifications cannot form the basis for a DMCA subpoena. Section 512(h), however, contemplated exactly this situation and makes clear that an ISP's obligation to identify infringers is distinct from the obligation imposed on ISPs to disable access to infringing material upon receipt of a DMCA notification. Thus, an ISP must respond to a DMCA subpoena "notwithstanding any other provision of law and regardless of whether the service provider responds to the notification." § 512(h)(5) (emphasis added). Congress thus envisioned that there would be situations, as here, in which an ISP need not respond to a notice of infringement, but nonetheless must respond to the subpoena. For all of these reasons, an examination of the text, structure, and purpose of the DMCA compels the conclusion that § 512(h) is not limited as the panel believed, but applies to all ISPs regardless of whether they are storing infringing material. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, RIAA respectfully requests that the Court grant rehearing or rehearing en banc.

15

Respectfully

submitted,

Of Counsel: Matthew J. Oppenheim Stanley Pierre-Louis RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, D.C., 20036

,_. _,]'N'/,,._,, Donald BI Verrilli, Jr.,--D('._'_"--Bar 420434 No. Thomas J. Perrelli, D.C. Bar No. 438929 Jared O. Freedman, D.C. Bar No. 469679 JENNER & BLOCK LLP 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 639-6000 Fax: (202) 639-6066

Date: February

2, 2004

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of February, 2004, I caused copies of the foregoing Recording Industry Association of America's Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, to be

served via first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Andrew G. McBride Bruce G. Joseph Dineen P. Wasylik Kathryn L. Comerford WILEY REIN & FIELDING 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Peter Keisler Roscoe C. Howard, Jr. Douglas N. Letter Scott R. McIntosh DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530 David E. Kendall Paul B. Gaffney Manish K. Mital WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Cindy A. Cohn ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Paul Alan Levy PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION 1600 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 LLP John Thorne Sarah B. Deutsch VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES, 1515 N. Courthouse Road 5 th Floor Arlington, Lawrence VA 22201 S. Robbins INC.

LLP

Kathryn S. Zecca ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK & UNTEREINER LLP 1801 K Street, NW Suite 411 Washington, DC 20006

Megan E. Gray GRAY MATTERS 1928 Calvert Street, NW Suite 6 Washington, DC 20009

Joe Robert Caldwell, Jr. BAKER BOTTS LLP The Warner Building 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Stewart Baker STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036

GROUP

Thomas J. i_/_elli -

-_ _"

CIRCUIT RULE 35(c) ADDENDUM

INDEX RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services Inc., No. 03-7015 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2003) .................... Add. 1 Certificate of Parties and Amici ............................................................................................ Corporate Disclosure Statement ........................................................................................... Add. 17 Add. 22

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

Uniteb State Court of ppeal[S
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 16, 2003

Decided December 19, 2003

No. 03-7015
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION APPELLEE OF AMERICA, _NC.,

V.

VERIZON

INTERNET

SERVICES,

INC.,

APPELLANT

Consolidated with 03-7053

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 02ms00323) (No. 03ms00040)

Andrew G. McBride argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were John Thorne, Bruce G. Joseph, and Bills ofcosts must be filedwithin14days after entry ofjudgment. The court lookswith disfavoruponmotionsto file bills of costs out of time.

Add. 1

2 Dineen P. Wasylik. ance. Deanne E. Maynard entered an appear-

Megan E. Gray, Lawrence S. Robbins, Alan Untereiner, Christopher A. Hansen, Arthur B. Spitzer, and Cindy Cohn were on the brief for amici curiae Alliance for Public Technology, et al., in support of appellant. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. argued the cause for appellee Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. With him on the brief were Thomas J. Perrelli and Matthew J. Oppenheim. Scott R. McIntosh, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for intervenor-appellee United States. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Douglas N. Letter, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Paul B. Gaffney, Thomas G. Hentoff, Eric H. Smith, Patricia Polach, Ann Chaitovitz, Allan R. Adler, Joseph J. DiMonc_ Robert S. Giolito, and Chun T. Wright were on the brief for amici curiae Motion Picture Association of America, et al., in support of appellee Recording Industry Association of America. David E. Kendall entered an appearance. Paul Alan Levy, Alan B. Morrison, and Allison M. Zieve were on the brief for amicus curiae Public Citizen. Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROBERTS, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GINSBURG.
GINSBURG, Chief Judge: This case concerns the Recording Industry Association of America's use of the subpoena provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), to identify internet users the RIAA believes are infringing the copyrights of its members. The RIAA served two subpoenas upon Verizon Internet Services in order to discover the names of two Verizon subscribers who appeared to be trading large numbers of .rap3 files of copyrighted music via "peer-to-peer" (P2P) file sharing programs, such as

Add. 2

3 KaZaA. Verizon refused to comply with the subpoenas various legal grounds. on

The district court rejected Verizon's statutory and constitutional challenges to § 512(h) and ordered the internet service provider (ISP) to disclose to the RIAA the names of the two subscribers. On appeal Verizon presents three alternative arguments for reversing the orders of the district court: (1) § 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting solely as a conduit for communications the content of which is determined by others; if the statute does authorize such a subpoena, then the statute is unconstitutional because (2) the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction to issue a subpoena with no underlying "case or controversy" pending before the court; and (3) § 512(h) violates the First Amendment because it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect an internet user's ability to speak and to associate anonymously. Because we agree with Verizon's interpretation of the statute, we reverse the orders of the district court enforcing the subpoenas and do not reach either of Verizon's constitutional arguments.* I. Background

Individuals with a personal computer and access to the internet began to offer digital copies of recordings for download by other users, an activity known as file sharing, in the late 1990's using a program called Napster. Although recording companies and music publishers successfully obtained an injunction against Napster's facilitating the sharing of files containing copyrighted recordings, see A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002); A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), millions of people in the United States and around the world continue to *The district court's jurisdiction to issue the orders here under review is not drawn into question by Verizon's Article III argument. See Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 476-78 (1894) (application of ICC to enforce subpoena issued by agency in furtherance of investigation presents "case or controversy" subject to judicial resolution).

Add. 3

4 share digital .mp3 files of copyrighted recordings using P2P computer programs such as KaZaA, Morpheus, Grokster, and eDonkey. See John Borland, File Swapping Shifts Up a Gear (May 27, 2003), available at http://news.com.com/21001026-1009742.html, (last visited December 2, 2003). Unlike Napster, which relied upon a centralized communication architecture to identify the .mp3 files available for download, the current generation of P2P file sharing programs allow an internet user to search directly the .mp3 file libraries of other users; no web site is involved. See Douglas Lichtman & William Landes, Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement: An Economic Perspective, 16 HAaV. J. LAW & TECH. 395, 403, 408--09 (2003). To date, owners of copyrights have not been able to stop the use of these decentralized programs. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (holding Grokster not contributorily liable for copyright infringement by users of its P2P file sharing program). The RIAA now has begun to direct its anti-infringement efforts against individual users of P2P file sharing programs. In order to pursue apparent infringers the RIAA needs to be able to identify the individuals who are sharing and trading files using P2P programs. The RIAA can readily obtain the screen name of an individual user, and using the Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with that screen name, can trace the user to his ISP. Only the ISP, however, can link the IP address used to access a P2P program with the name and address of a person - the ISP's customer - who can then be contacted or, if need be, sued by the RIAA. The RIAA has used the subpoena provisions of § 512(h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to compel ISPs to disclose the names of subscribers whom the RIAA has reason to believe are infringing its members' copyrights. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(h)(1) (copyright owner may "request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to [an ISP] for identification of an alleged infringer"). Some ISPs have complied with the RIAA's § 512(h) subpoenas and identified the names of the subscribers sought by the RIAA. The RIAA has sent letters to and filed lawsuits against

Add. 4

5 several hundred such individuals, each of whom allegedly made available for download by other users hundreds or in some cases even thousands of .mp3 files of copyrighted recordings. Verizon refused to comply with and instead has challenged the validity of the two § 512(h) subpoenas it has received. A copyright owner (or its agent, such as the RIAA) must file three items along with its request that the Clerk of a district court issue a subpoena: (1) a "notification of claimed infringement" identifying the copyrighted work(s) claimed to have been infringed and the infringing material or activity, and providing information reasonably sufficient for the ISP to locate the material, all as further specified in 5 512(c)(3)(A); (2) the proposed subpoena directed to the ISP; and (3) a sworn declaration that the purpose of the subpoena is "to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting" rights under the copyright laws of the United States. 17 U.S.C. 5§ 512(h)(2)(A)-(C). If the copyright owner's request contains all three items, then the Clerk "shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena and return it to the requester for delivery to the [ISP]." 17 U.S.C. 5 512(h)(4). Upon receipt of the subpoena the ISP is "authorize[d] and order[ed]" to disclose to the copyright owner the identity of the alleged infringer. See 17 U.S.C. §5 512(h)(3), (5). On July 24, 2002 the RIAA served Verizon with a subpoena issued pursuant to 5 512(h), seeking the identity of a subscriber whom the RIAA believed to be engaged in infringing activity. The subpoena was for "information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer of the sound recordings described in the attached notification." The "notification of claimed infringement" identified the IP address of the subscriber and about 800 sound files he offered for trading; expressed the RIAA's "good faith belief' the file sharing activity of Verizon's subscriber constituted infringement of its members' copyrights; and asked for Verizon's "immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity." "Specifically, we request that you remove or disable access to the infringing sound files via your system."

Add. 5

6 When Verizon refused to disclose the name of its subscriber, the RIAA filed a motion to compel production pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B) and § 512(h)(6) of the Act. In opposition to that motion, Verizon argued § 512(h) does not apply to an ISP acting merely as a conduit for an individual using a P2P file sharing program to exchange files. The district court rejected Verizon's argument based upon "the language and structure of the statute, as confirmed by the purpose and history of the legislation," and ordered Verizon to disclose to the RIAA the name of its subscriber. In re Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 24, 45 (D.D.C. 2003) (Verizon I). The RIAA then obtained another § 512(h) subpoena directed to Verizon. This time Verizon moved to quash the subpoeha, arguing that the district court, acting through the Clerk, lacked jurisdiction under Article III to issue the subpoena and in the alternative that § 512(h) violates the First Amendment. The district court rejected Verizon's constitutional arguments, denied the motion to quash, and again ordered Verizon to disclose the identity of its subscriber. In re Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 244, 247, 275 (D.D.C. 2003) (Verizon II). Verizon appealed both orders to this Court and we consolidated the two cases. As it did before the district court, the RIAA defends both the applicability of § 512(h) to an ISP acting as a conduit for P2P file sharing and the constitutionality of § 512(h). The United States has intervened solely to defend the constitutionality of the statute. II. Analysis

The court ordinarily reviews a district court's grant of a motion to compel or denial of a motion to quash for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Here, however, Verizon contends the orders of the district court were based upon errors of law, specifically errors regarding the meaning of § 512(h). Our review is therefore plenary. See In re Subpoena Served Upon the

Add. 6

7 Comptroller of the Currency, 967 F.2d 630, 633 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The issue is whether § 512(h) applies to an ISP acting only as a conduit for data transferred between two internet users, such as persons sending and receiving e-mail or, as in this case, sharing P2P files. Verizon contends § 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP that transmits infringing material but does not store any such material on its servers. The RIAA argues § 512(h) on its face authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to an "[internet] service provider" without regard to whether the ISP is acting as a conduit for user-directed communications. We conclude from both the terms of § 512(h) and the overall structure of § 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. A. Subsection 512(h) by its Terms We begin our analysis, as always, with the text of the statute. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002). Verizon's statutory arguments address the meaning of and interaction between §§ 512(h) and 512(a)-(d). Having already discussed the general requirements of § 512(h), we now introduce §§ 512(a)-(d). Section 512 creates four safe harbors, each of which immunizes ISPs from liability for copyright infringement under certain highly specified conditions. Subsection 512(a), entitled "Transitory digital network communications," provides a safe harbor "for infringement of copyright by reason of the [ISP's] transmitting, routing, or providing connections for" infringing material, subject to certain conditions, including that the transmission is initiated and directed by an internet user. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(a)(1)-(5). Subsection 512(b), "System caching," provides immunity from liability "for infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the [ISP]," § 512(b)(1), as long as certain conditions regarding the transmission and retrieval of the material created by the ISP are met. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(b)(2)(A)-(E). Subsection 512(c), "Information residing

Add. 7

8 on systems or networks at the direction of users," creates a safe harbor from liability "for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider," as long as the ISP meets certain conditions regarding its lack of knowledge concerning, financial benefit from, and expeditious efforts to remove or deny access to, material that is infringing or that is claimed to be the subject of infringing activity. See 17 U.S.C. §5 512(c)(1)(A)-(C). Finally, § 512(d), "Information location tools," provides a safe harbor from liability "for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools" such as "a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link," subject to the same conditions as in §§ 512(c)(1)(A)-(C). See 17 U.S.C. 5§ 512(d)(1)-(3). Notably present in §5 512(b)-(d), and notably absent from § 512(a), is the so-called notice and take-down provision. It makes a condition of the ISP's protection from liability for copyright infringement that "upon notification of claimed infringement as described in [5 512](c)(3)," the ISP "responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing." See 17 U.S.C. 5§ 512(b)(2)(E), 512(c)(1)(C), and 512(d)(3). Verizon argues that § 512(h) by its terms precludes the Clerk of Court from issuing a subpoena to an ISP acting as a conduit for P2P communications because a § 512(h) subpoena request cannot meet the requirement in § 512(h)(2)(A) that a proposed subpoena contain "a copy of a notification [of claimed infringement, as] described in [§ 512](c)(3)(A)."* In *Subsection 512(c)(3)(A) provides that "[t]o be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication ... that includes substantially the following": (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Add. 8

9 particular, the RIAA Verizon maintains the two subpoenas obtained by fail to meet the requirements of § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii)

in that they do not - because Verizon is not storing the infringing material on its server - and can not, identify material "to be removed or access to which is to be disabled" by Verizon. Here Verizon points out that § 512(h)(4) makes satisfaction of the notification requirement of § 512(c)(3)(A) a condition precedent to issuance of a subpoena: "If the notification filed satisfies the provisions of [§ 512](c)(3)(A)" and the other content requirements of § 512(h)(2) are met, then "the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena ... for delivery" to the ISP. Infringing material obtained or distributed via P2P file sharing is located in the computer (or in an off-line storage (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted. (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A).

Add.

9

10 device, such as a compact disc) of an individual user. No matter what information the copyright owner may provide, the ISP can neither "remove" nor "disable access to" the infringing material because that material is not stored on the ISP's servers. Verizon can not remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers. The RIAA contends an ISP can indeed "disable access" to infringing material by terminating the offending subscriber's internet account. This argument is undone by the terms of the Act, however. As Verizon notes, the Congress considered disabling an individual's access to infringing material and disabling access to the internet to be different remedies for the protection of copyright owners, the former blocking access to the infringing material on the offender's computer and the latter more broadly blocking the offender's access to the internet (at least via his chosen ISP). Compare 17 U.S.C. § 512(j)(1)(A)(i) (authorizing injunction restraining ISP "from providing access to infringing material") with 17 U.S.C. § 512(j)(1)(A)(ii) (authorizing injunction restraining ISP "from providing access to a subscriber or account holder ... who is engaging in infringing activity ... by terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder"). "[W]here different terms are used in a single piece of legislation, the court must presume that Congress intended the terms have different meanings." Transbrasil S.A. Linhas Aereas v. Dep't of Transp., 791 F.2d 202, 205 (D.C. Cir. 1986). These distinct statutory remedies establish that terminating a subscriber's account is not the same as removing or disabling access by others to the infringing material resident on the subscriber's computer. The RIAA points out that even if, with respect to an ISP functioning as a conduit for user-directed communications, a copyright owner cannot satisfy the requirement of § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) by identifying material to be removed by the ISP, a notification is effective under § 512(c)(3)(A) if it "includes substantially" the required information; that standard is satisfied, the RIAA maintains, because the ISP can

Add. 10

11 identify the infringer based upon the information provided by the copyright owner pursuant to §§ 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(ii) and (iv)-(vi). According to the RIAA, the purpose of § 512(h) being to identify infringers, a notice should be deemed sufficient so long as the ISP can identify the infringer from the IP address in the subpoena. Nothing in the Act itself says how we should determine whether a notification "includes substantially" all the required information; both the Senate and House Reports, however, state the term means only that "technical errors ... such as misspelling a name" or "supplying an outdated area code" will not render ineffective an otherwise complete § 512(c)(3)(A) notification. S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 47 (1998); H.R. Rep. No. 105-551 (II), at 56 (1998). Clearly, however, the defect in the RIAA's notification is not a mere technical error; nor could it be thought "insubstantial" even under a more forgiving standard. The RIAA's notification identifies absolutely no material Verizon could remove or access to which it could disable, which indicates to us that § 512(c)(3)(A) concerns means of infringement other than P2P file sharing. Finally, the RIAA argues the definition of "[internet] service provider" in § 512(k)(1)(B) makes § 512(h) applicable to an ISP regardless what function it performs with respect to infringing material - transmitting it per § 512(a), caching it per § 512(b), hosting it per § 512(c), or locating it per § 512(d). This argument borders upon the silly. The details of this argument need not burden the Federal Reporter, for the specific provisions of § 512(h), which we have just rehearsed, make clear that however broadly "[internet] service provider" is defined in § 512(k)(1)(B), a subpoena may issue to an ISP only under the prescribed conditions regarding notification. Define all the world as an ISP if you like, the validity of a § 512(h) subpoena still depends upon the copyright holder having given the ISP, however defined, a notification effective under § 512(c)(3)(A). And as we have seen, any notice to an ISP concerning its activity as a mere conduit does not satisfy the condition of § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) and is therefore ineffective.

Add. 11

12 In sum, we agree with Verizon that 8 512(h) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here. A 8 512(h) subpoena simply cannot meet the notice requirement of 8 512(c)(3)(A)(iii). B. Structure Verizon also argues the subpoena provision, 8 512(h), relates uniquely to the safe harbor in 8 512(c) for ISPs engaged in storing copyrighted material and does not apply to the transmitting function addressed by the safe harbor in 8 512(a). Verizon's claim is based upon the "three separate cross-references" in 8 512(h) to the notification described in 8 512(c)(3)(A). First, as we have seen, 8 512(h)(2)(A) requires the copyright owner to file, along with its request for a subpoena, the notification described in 8 512(c)(3)(A). Second, and again as we have seen, 8 512(h)(4) requires that the notification satisfy "the provisions of [8 512](c)(3)(A)" as a condition precedent to the Clerk's issuing the requested subpoena. Third, 8 512(h)(5) conditions the ISP's obligation to identify the alleged infringer upon "receipt of a notification described in [8 512](c)(3)(A)." We agree that the presence in 8 512(h) of three separate references to 8 512(c) and the absence of any reference to 8 512(a) suggests the subpoena power of 8 512(h) applies only to ISPs engaged in storing copyrighted material and not to those engaged solely in transmitting it on behalf of others. As the RIAA points out in response, however, because 88 512(b) and (d) also require a copyright owner to provide a "notification ... as described in [8 512](c)(3)," the crossreferences to 8 512(c)(3)(A) in 8 512(h) can not confine the operation of 8 512(h) solely to the functions described in 8 512(c), but must also include, at a minimum, the functions described in 88 512(b) and (d). Therefore, according to the RIAA, because Verizon is mistaken in stating that "the takedown notice described in [8 512](c)(3)(A) ... applies exclusively to the particular functions described in [8 512](c) of the statute," the subpoena power in 8 512(h) is not linked exclusively to 8 512(c) but rather applies to all the ISP functions, wherever they may be described in 88 512(a)-(d).

Add. 12

13 Although the RIAA's conclusion is a non-sequitur with respect to § 512(a), we agree with the RIAA that Verizon overreaches by claiming the notification described in § 512(c)(3)(A) applies only to the functions identified in § 512(c). As Verizon correctly notes, however, the ISP activities described in §§ 512(b) and (d) are storage functions. As such, they are, like the ISP activities described in § 512(c) and unlike the transmission functions listed in § 512(a), susceptible to the notice and take down regime of §§ 512(b)-(d), of which the subpoena power of § 512(h) is an integral part. We think it clear, therefore, that the cross-references to § 512(c)(3) in §§ 512(b)-(d) demonstrate that § 512(h) applies to an ISP storing infringing material on its servers in any capacity - whether as a temporary cache of a web page created by the ISP per § 512(b), as a web site stored on the ISP's server per § 512(c), or as an information locating tool hosted by the ISP per § 512(d) - and does not apply to an ISP routing infringing material to or from a personal computer owned and used by a subscriber. The storage activities described in the safe harbors of §§ 512(b)-(d) are subject to § 512(c)(3), including the notification described in § 512(c)(3)(A). By contrast, as we have already seen, an ISP performing a function described in § 512(a), such as transmitting e-mails, instant messages, or files sent by an internet user from his computer to that of another internet user, cannot be sent an effective § 512(c)(3)(A) notification. Therefore, the references to § 512(c)(3) in §§ 512(b) and (d) lead inexorably to the conclusion that § 512(h) is structurally linked to the storage functions of an ISP and not to its transmission functions, such as those listed in § 512(a). C. Legislative History

In support of its claim that § 512(h) can - and should - be read to reach P2P technology, the RIAA points to congressional testimony and news articles available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA. These sources document the threat to copyright owners posed by bulletin board services

Add. 13

14 (BBSs) and file transfer protocol (FTP) sites, which the RIAA says were precursors to P2P programs. We need not, however, resort to investigating what the 105th Congress may have known because the text of § 512(h) and the overall structure of § 512 clearly establish, as we have seen, that § 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting as a mere conduit for the transmission of information sent by others. Legislative history can serve to inform the court's reading of an otherwise ambiguous text; it cannot lead the court to contradict the legislation itself. See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-48 (1994) ("[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear"). In any event, not only is the statute clear (albeit complex), the legislative history of the DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works. That is not surprising; P2P software was "not even a glimmer in anyone's eye when the DMCA was enacted." In re Verizon I, 240 F. Supp. 2d at 38. Furthermore, such testimony as was available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA concerned "hackers" who established unauthorized FTP or BBS sites on the servers of ISPs, see Balance of Responsibilities on the Internet and the Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2180 Before the House Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property, Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997) (statement of Ken Wasch, President, Software Publishers Ass'n); rogue ISPs that posted FTP sites on their servers, thereby making files of copyrighted musical works available for download, see Complaint, Geffen Records, Inc. v. Arizona Bizness Network, No. CIV. 98-0794, at ¶ 1 (D. Ariz. May 5, 1998) available at http: //www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/geffencomplaint.pdf, (last visited December 2, 2003); and BBS subscribers using dial-up technology to connect to a BBS hosted by an ISP. The Congress had no reason to foresee the application of § 512(h) to P2P file sharing, nor did they draft the DMCA broadly enough to reach the new technology when it came along. Had the Congress been aware of P2P technology, or antici-

Add. 14

15 pated its development, § 512(h) might have been drafted more generally. Be that as it may, contrary to the RIAA's claim, nothing in the legislative history supports the issuance of a § 512(h) subpoena to an ISP acting as a conduit for P2P file sharing. D. Purpose of the DMCA Finally, the RIAA argues Verizon's interpretation of the statute "would defeat the core objectives" of the Act. More specifically, according to the RIAA there is no policy justification for limiting the reach of § 512(h) to situations in which the ISP stores infringing material on its system, considering that many more acts of copyright infringement are committed in the P2P realm, in which the ISP merely transmits the material for others, and that the burden upon an ISP required to identify an infringing subscriber is minimal. We are not unsympathetic either to the RIAA's concern regarding the widespread infringement of its members' copyrights, or to the need for legal tools to protect those rights. It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries. The plight of copyright holders must be addressed in the first instance by the Congress; only the "Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology." See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984). The stakes are large for the music, motion picture, and software industries and their role in fostering technological innovation and our popular culture. It is not surprising, therefore, that even as this case was being argued, committees of the Congress were considering how best to deal with the threat to copyrights posed by P2P file sharing schemes. See, e.g., Privacy & Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry: Hearing Before the

Add. 15

16 Senate Comm. On Governmental Affairs, 108th (Sept. 30, 2003); Pornography, Technology, and Problems and Solutions on Peer-to-Peer Networks: Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th (Sept. 9, 2003). III. Conclusion Congress Process: Hearing Congress

For the foregoing reasons, we remand this case to the district court to vacate its order enforcing the February 4 subpoena and to grant Verizon's motion to quash the July 24 subpoena. So ordered.

Add. 16

CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES AND AMICI Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rules 28(a)(1)(A) and 35(c), the Recording Industry Association of America, by its attorneys, hereby certifies that the following parties, intervenors and amici appeared before the District Court and this Court:

District Court. The parties and amici before the District Court were as follows: Plaintiff Recording Industry Association of America Defendant Verizon Internet Services, Inc. Intervenor (D.D.C. No. 1:03MS00040) United States Amici Curiae (D.D.C. No. 1:02MS 0323) Alliance for Public Technology Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Consumer Alert Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Access Project National Grange National Consumers League Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Privacy Activism Public Knowledge

Add. 17

Utility Consumers' Action Network Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law United States Internet Industry Association The Computer & Communications Industry Association Internet Service Providers Association (South Africa) Yahoo!, Inc. Southern Star Mercury Networks, LLC Netlink 2000, LLC Zzapp! Internet Services SMCNET LLC Ice Communications, Inc. Frontier and Citizens Communications DM Solutions Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Amici Curiae (D.D.C. No. 1:03MS00040) The Computer & Communications Industry Association Texas Internet Service Providers Association Washington Association of Internet Service Providers Inkeeper Co. Progressive Internet Southern Star

Add. 18

Mercury Network Corp. Zzapp! Internet Services Capricia Internet Services LRBCG.com, Inc. STIC.net, LP Wiredsafety.og Parry Aftab Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Court of Appeals. The parties and amici before this Court were as follows: Plaintiff-Appellee Recording Industry Association of America Defendant-Appellant Verizon Internet Services, Inc. Intervenor United States of America Amici Curiae (D.C. Cir. No. 03-7015) Public Citizen American Legislative Exchange Council Capricia Intemet Services Computer Communications Industry Association European Internet Service Provider Association InKeeper Co. Mercury Network Corp.

Add. 19

New York State Telecommunications Association, Inc. Progressive Intemet Action SBC Internet Services Southern Star Stic.net. LP Texas Internet Service Providers Association United States Internet Industry Association United States Internet Service Provider Association United States Telecom Association Washington Association of Internet Service Providers Zzapp! Intemet Services Alliance for Public Technology American Civil Liberties Union ACLU of the National Capital Area American Association of Law Libraries American Library Association Association of Research Libraries Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation Competitive Enterprise Institute Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Consumer Action Consumer Federation of America Consumers Union

Add. 20

DigitalConsumer.org Digital Future Coalition EDUCAUSE Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center Media Access Project National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators National Coalition Against Domestic Violence National Consumers League National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry Pacific Research Institute Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Privacyactivism Public Knowledge Utility Consumers' Action Network WiredSafety.org

Add. 21

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rules 26.1 and 35(c), the Recording Industry Association of America, by its attorneys, respectfully states that it is not a corporate entity, and is neither owned by a parent corporation nor by any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock.

Add. 22