## Facts

- Copyright owners, acting through a trade association, alleged that an unidentified subscriber used a peer-to-peer network to offer copyrighted sound recordings for download.
- The subscriber accessed the peer-to-peer network through an internet service provider (ISP) that provided internet connectivity but did not host the allegedly infringing files.
- The copyright owners sought the subscriber’s identity by requesting a clerk-issued subpoena under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512(h).
- The ISP refused to disclose identifying information and moved to quash, arguing § 512(h) does not apply to conduit-only service under § 512(a) and that compelled identification violated subscribers’ First Amendment anonymity interests and was overbroad.
- The United States intervened, and various groups participated as amici.

## Issues

1. Whether DMCA § 512(h) authorizes a subpoena compelling a conduit-only ISP under § 512(a) to identify a subscriber allegedly infringing via peer-to-peer file sharing when the ISP does not store the infringing material.
2. Whether enforcing a § 512(h) subpoena to unmask a subscriber violates the First Amendment right to anonymous speech.
3. Whether the § 512(h) clerk-issued subpoena process is overbroad or lacks sufficient procedural safeguards.

## Decision

- The court denied the ISP’s motion to quash and ordered compliance with the § 512(h) subpoena.
- The court held § 512(h) applies to an ISP functioning as a conduit under § 512(a) and does not require that the infringing material reside on the ISP’s servers.
- The court held compelled disclosure of the subscriber’s identity in this setting did not violate the First Amendment and was not impermissibly overbroad.
- The court concluded the statutory requirements for requesting a subpoena supplied adequate protections against improper requests.

## Legal Principles

- DMCA § 512(h) may be used to obtain identifying information from a “service provider,” and the provision can apply even when the provider is alleged to function only as an internet access conduit.
- A clerk-issued subpoena under § 512(h) is conditioned on a request that includes a compliant infringement notification and sworn statements of good-faith belief and proper purpose as specified by the DMCA.
- The First Amendment protects anonymous speech, but that protection does not extend to maintaining anonymity for conduct reasonably supported as copyright infringement in a subpoena request meeting statutory conditions.
- In assessing challenges to § 512(h) subpoenas, courts may consider whether the request is tethered to specific allegations and statutory certifications sufficient to limit abusive or speculative identification efforts.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a DMCA § 512(h) subpoena requiring an ISP to disclose the identity of a subscriber alleged to have infringed copyrights via peer-to-peer file sharing, concluding that § 512(h) reaches conduit-only service and that the statute’s notice-and-certification requirements and the infringement context defeated First Amendment and overbreadth objections.


In re Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003)