(forwarded by E.Sum)
A U.S. District federal judge in Washington began his deliberations after hearing the first case, asking him to issue a federal subpoena that would compel an Internet Service Provider to reveal the name of one of its Internet subscribers accused of copyright violations. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the trade label acting on behalf of the recording companies, has been joined by the Hollywood studios and music publishers industry in a feud that pits their vast influence and power against a single Internet Service Provider (ISP), Verizon Internet Services, Inc. Since the request for the subpoena, numerous consumer advocates, civil liberties groups and other Internet Service Providers have sided with Verizon. At issue is whether the recording companies can use the federal courts to issue subpoenas to ISPs requiring them to reveal the identity of their file-sharing Internet subscribers, or whether the recording companies must first pursue individually each suspected violator.

The case originated from the discovery by an anti-piracy RIAA investigator of some 600 songs residing on Kazaa's file sharing network that RIAA claims were made available for copying. Unable to determine the identity of the user who had posted the songs, RIAA served the ISP, Verizon Internet, with a federal subpoena to reveal the user's identity. Verizon refused, and the RIAA brought a federal suit to enforce the subpoena under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Verizon argued that the copyright holders did not prove that the pirated files resided on Verizon's network, a legal requirement under the Act that needed to be met before Verizon could be held responsible. Verizon further postulated to the court that the RIAA subpoena is invalid because the alleged pirated music resides on one of their subscribers' personal computers, and the proper remedy is for RIAA to file an individual "John Doe" subpoena against the infringer before seeking a subpoena against an ISP. The judge did not give an early indication of his decision, but expressed criticism of the ambiguities in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.