The judge's decision, which could come at any time, could dictate how copyright holders deal with Internet piracy in the future. A music industry win would give copyright holders leeway to get hundreds of names of Internet file-swappers without going to court first.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, who heard the case, lamented ambiguities in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to uphold copyright laws on the Internet while shielding technology companies from direct liability.
Congress "could have made this statute clearer," Bates said. "This statute is not organized as being consistent with the argument for either side."
Bates said he would try to rule quickly, but lawyers for both sides had no guess of when the decision will be made.
Verizon said that since the hundreds of songs up for trade by the anonymous Verizon customer at the center of the case sit on the person's computer rather than Verizon's network, it is not required to automatically give up the subscriber's name.
"Verizon was a passive conduit at most," said Eric Holder, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who represented Verizon. Holder said the music industry's strategy could create a contentious relationship between Verizon and its customers and put the Internet provider in the position of handing over names to the music companies without a judicial determination of piracy.
"We also don't want to be the policeman in this process," Holder said.
Lawyers for the recording industry rejected Verizon's arguments that it had little obligations in the process. Industry lawyer Donald Verrilli said no type of service provider is exempt from having to identify a potential music pirate, no matter where the songs sit.
Verrilli also dismissed Verizon's position that the Internet provider's customers have a right to privacy.
"You don't have a first amendment right to steal copyright works," Verrilli said.
The judge disagreed with Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen.
"Here, there's only an allegation of infringement," Bates said.
Bates gave few hints as to how he might rule. He asked many, detailed questions of both sides. He called some Verizon positions vague, but showed little patience with other arguments advanced by the music industry and movie studios, which also argued on behalf of music publishers.
Some of the technology industry's fears are listed in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by an Internet provider trade group. They cite some overzealous automated programs that identify alleged pirates and shoot out automatic letters to their Internet providers without checking the facts.
In one case, Warner Bros. demanded a particular subscriber be disconnected for illegally sharing the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." But the computer file identified by Warner Bros. in its letter indicated it wasn't the "Harry Potter" movie but a child's written book report.
Another letter, to Internet provider UUNet, wanted a subscriber cut off for sharing songs by former Beatle George Harrison. But some files were not songs at all. One was an interview with Harrison, and another was a 1947 photograph of a "Mrs. Harrison."
The Verizon subscriber at the center of this process was sharing hundreds of songs on the Kazaa network, including some by Beck, Billy Joel and Janet Jackson. According to the Internet address cited in court records, the person is located in the Pittsburgh area. But the person may be oblivious to the controversy.
"Our general policy is to inform a user when we receive a subpoena," Deutsch said. "Since in our view this isn't valid, we haven't gotten the consumer involved in the debate."
Copyright 2002. Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
