Lessig

Am I right that this decision still leaves intact RIAA's ability to use the *normal* subpoena process?

More fully, this decision stops RIAA from using the super fast, super cheap subpoena system set up by the DMCA, but RIAA can still use "John Doe" subpoenas and achieve the same end result, albeit a little slower and at slightly greater cost.

Of course, if that's right, then the net result here might be bad for P2P users. RIAA has been settling these cases for about $3,000 per case. Now, RIAA will spend more per case, and might very well change their settlement offers accordingly.

The RIAA has lost a big one.

that's one way to look at it. another way is that now that the the "nice cop" approach has been thwarted, only the "bad cop" solution is left.

the focus will now likely shift to criminal copyright infringement.

unlike the selective civil process, the DOJ will be unable to turn a blind eye, or to be selective, about whom they prosecute for breaking federal law.

when presented with evidence of criminal violations (which no doubt the RIAA have already collected) the DOJ will have to act, and life will get a lot worse for people who otherwise may have been able to avoid a whole lot of trouble by paying the $3000 settlement.

so little jimmy slashdot who might otherwise have been dissuaded from his illegal and immoral activities by the threat of civil proceedings, will now not be called to the principal's office until the charges are criminal.

it seems that avoiding this is what congress intended with the "easy subpoena" approach, but now that this is gone, the gloves are off. and instead of simple corrective action that the "easy subpoena" procedure facilitated, lives will now have to be destroyed.

some victory.

to the person named joseph pietro riolo.

yes, you are correct that the DOJ does not prosecute all violations of federal law.

but you seem to be confusing the $2500 statutory limit which the U.S. congress set as the threshold for felony copyright infringement and the government's interest in prosecuting any particular case.

WANLs (we are not lawyers) but based on our reading of books, we are aware that the government's primary interest in enforcing the law is deterrence. part of the selection process is choosing high profile cases most likely to have a deterrent effect on others.

(there are also other factors such as the volume and retail value of pirated material involved, whether the defendant uploaded or downloaded material to the internet, and whether a person has a role in a larger criminal organization, etc.)

the mice can only speculate, but it seems to us that the DOJ has taken a hands off approach so far to see if the problem of internet copyright infringement could be solved in a less aggressive way through the civil courts. (by any measure, federal criminal prosecution is far worse for an individual than any civil action which could be taken by the RIAA.)

colour us naive, but we imagine johnny law doesn't like sending misguided young people to federal prison because some adults have falsely led them to believe that file-sharing copyrighted material is OK.

all we are saying is that by making it harder for the RIAA to pursue civil remedies, the likelihoood of criminal prosecution is increased.

and if our speculation is correct, this is bad news indeed for file-sharers.