Last week we explored anonymity on the internet. In our discussion we explored the following cases: In Re Subpoena Tecum Duces to America Online, Inc., Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc, The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., and Sony Music Industry, Inc. v. Does.
In each of theses cases a party was seeking the identity of anonymous internet users who were allegedly breaking the law. We discussed after class whether individuals had a false sense of security when surfing the internet and partook in actions that they would normally not partake in because they felt their identities could not be discovered.
One of the students in our class stated that he believed users who committed copyright infringement by downloading music illegally because they felt that they were not actually taking anything physical. Whereas, in “real-space”, walking into a physical CD store and stealing music was the actual theft of a physical, tangible thing that someone else might have purchased. While most users who participated in copyright infringement did so believing that they never intended to purchase the music they downloaded illegally and only partook in the practice of downloading music illegally for the sake of downloading music illegally.
I definitely see my classmate’s point, but I also think a contributory factor for the apathy toward the law in this respect has to do with the fact that users who download music illegally think they will not get caught.
In The Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Service, the court found that Verizon was not required to hand over the identity of its users to the RIAA because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) section 512(h) did not apply to internet service providers who did not store any of the infringing content on their servers.
However, in Sony Music Industry v. Does, the court found that “Does”, the defendants’ identity was not protected under the First Amendment because the infringers were breaking the law. Judge Chine stated, “The defendants’ First Amendment right to remain anonymous must give way to plaintiffs’ right to use the judicial process to pursue what appear to be meritorious copyright infringement claims.”
In 2002 popular P2P file sharing programs were downloaded by over 148 million times and only a few thousand people been prosecuted and charged with criminal liability for downloading music illegally. Given these facts, it is clear that a reasonable person who downloads music illegally could expect that the likelihood that he or she would be prosecuted and held criminally liable for downloading music illegally is low.
The fact is a large number of users believe they are just one of millions of individuals who participate in a popular, illegal practice of downloading music illegally. Users who partake in this behavior feel that even if someone discovers that they have downloaded content illegally, they have not infringed to the same degree as those who are paraded before the media. They feel in some way their actions, although illegal are justifiable.
My classmate characterized it well: It’s easier to justify something that is not tangible and something a user would never actually purchase. It’s also easier to justify illegal behavior if the practice is common place and the infringing use by the user is meager in comparison to other user’s infringing use.
The fact is the internet is like a bulletin board and people choose to post, share and contribute to it resulting in sometimes illegal uses. However, because the internet is an open place for ideas, content and thought, it is not a shield or veil by which illegal behavior will be overlooked. The RIAA has already began to make an example of individuals who infringe on copyright. In the end, users are taking their chances that the RIAA and the law won’t catch up to technology.
0 Responses to “Intermediaries: Anonymity and Individuals”