Rulings Define What's Legal In File-Sharing
A federal judge refused to uphold a motion filed by Verizon Internet Services to quash the disclosure of the identities of two of its users who had shared songs using the Kazaa file-sharing service. On Friday, however, a judge in a separate case ruled that StreamCast Networks and Grokster cannot be liable for the actions of its users.

Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court ruled that the RIAA's request did violate the laws of free speech or Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that a court may only rule when a legal case is pending before a judge.

More importantly, though, the judge ruled that Kazaa users do not have a right to anonymity. "The (Digitial Millennium Copyright Act), however, does not directly impact core political speech, and thus may not warrant the type of "exacting scrutiny" reserved for that context," Judge Bates wrote. "Section 512(h) deals strictly with copyright infringement. Verizon concedes, as it must, that there is no First Amendment defense to copyright violations."

The judge ruled that the DMCA adequately protects the consumer by requiring prosecuters, such as the RIAA, to show there is a "good faith" reason to believe that the defendant is violating it, and that the RIAA was acting on behalf of copyright holders.

The DMCA, by defending copyrights -- "the engine of free expression," in the words of the court -- "fosters speech by helping artists, musicians, and authors protect their creative works, in turn encouraging further expression".

RIAA executives expressed their pleasure with the decision.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1043474,00.asp