## Facts

- Copyright owners, through the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), believed certain Verizon Internet Services subscribers used peer-to-peer file-sharing software (e.g., KaZaA) to distribute copyrighted MP3 files.
- The allegedly infringing files were located on subscribers’ personal computers rather than on Verizon’s network or servers.
- RIAA sought subscriber identities associated with particular IP addresses.
- RIAA served subpoenas on Verizon under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h), the DMCA subpoena provision, to require disclosure of identifying information.
- Verizon’s role with respect to the P2P transfers was limited to providing internet access (a “conduit” function), not hosting or storing the allegedly infringing material.

## Issues

1. Whether 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) authorizes subpoenas to an ISP acting solely as a conduit under § 512(a), where the ISP does not store the allegedly infringing material on its system or network.
2. Whether the case should be resolved on statutory grounds without reaching constitutional challenges to applying § 512(h) subpoenas to conduit-only ISPs.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s order enforcing the subpoenas and remanded with instructions to grant Verizon’s motion to quash.
- The court held that § 512(h) subpoena authority applies only where the ISP is engaged in storing infringing material on its servers (the § 512(c) context), not where the ISP merely transmits communications under § 512(a).
- Because the dispute was resolved as a matter of statutory interpretation, the court did not address Verizon’s constitutional arguments.

## Legal Principles

- Section 512(h) subpoena requests must include a notification “described in” § 512(c)(3)(A), tying the subpoena mechanism to the § 512(c) storage/hosting framework.
- The DMCA’s safe-harbor structure distinguishes among ISP functions; a procedural mechanism linked to takedown of stored material does not extend to conduit-only transmission activity where there is no material on the ISP’s system to remove or disable.
- Courts may apply constitutional avoidance by deciding a case on a reasonable statutory ground and declining to reach constitutional questions unnecessary to the disposition.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit limited DMCA § 512(h) subpoenas to situations involving material stored on an ISP’s system under § 512(c), holding that a conduit-only ISP providing internet access under § 512(a) cannot be compelled through § 512(h) to identify subscribers alleged to have shared files from their own computers.


Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003)