The case dates back to August last year when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took Verizon Internet Services to court because it refused to identify customers who were making available MP3 files of copyrighted songs from their home computers, using file-sharing services like KaZaA.
The RIAA had served a subpoena on the company, basically a demand for the identity of alleged infringers, under a provision of the controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, which states that: "a copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer".
Verizon argued that because the allegedly infringing files resided on a home PC, not Verizon's servers, the subpoena was not valid. The RIAA countered that the legislation does not specify that the infringing material reside on the ISP's network.
The court decided in favour of the RIAA and Verizon immediately asked for a stay in identifying the subscribers while the decision was appealed. It was this request that was at issue on Thursday.
Verizon argued that the subpoena provisions of the DMCA breached the First Amendment rights of internet users – i.e. the right to freedom of speech – but this was rejected by the court.
Judge John Bates stated: "Because Verizon is unable to show irreparable harm or that it is likely to succeed on an appeal of its constitutional or statutory challenges, the Court also denies Verizon's request for a stay pending appeal."
In a statement on Thursday, Cary Sherman of the RIAA said:
"If users of pirate peer-to-peer sites don't want to be identified, they should not break the law by illegally distributing music. Today's decision makes clear that these individuals cannot rely on their ISPs to shield them from accountability."
John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for Verizon, countered:
"We will continue to use every legal means available to protect our subscribers' privacy and will immediately seek a stay from the US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has already agreed to hear this important internet privacy case on an expedited schedule."