RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services Inc. (December 2003):
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against the recording industry's attempts to force the nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally swapping music online, overturning an earlier decision by a trial judge.

RIAA v. Grokster, Streamcast (April 2003):
A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled on April 28 that peer-to-peer (P2P) software companies Grokster and Streamcast are not liable for copyright infringements committed by their users.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson stressed the technological differences between Napster, Streamcast and Grokster. When Napster users searched for a song file, their request was sent through Napster's centralized services, which, it was ruled, meant the company was actively involved in its users' copyright infringement.

By contrast, the networks of Grokster and Streamcast are decentralized, so users search for requested files through a network of other connected users. Because of the decentralized nature of the P2P networks, there is no admissible evidence "that the defendants have the ability to supervise and control the infringing conduct," Judge Wilson wrote.

"Grokster and Streamcast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights," the judge found.

RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services Inc. (April 2003):
As part of its campaign to end unauthorized online music downloading, the RIAA has begun to sue Internet users who illegally download copyrighted material.

In July 2002, the Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed Verizon for information about two of its Internet subscribers who allegedly violated copyright laws. The RIAA cited a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that allows a copyright owner to order a service provider to hand over information about a subscriber. The DMCA's expedited subpoena process means that a judge's approval is not required to release such information, and the copyright holder does not have to inform the alleged copyright violators.

Verizon rejected the order, arguing the RIAA had overstepped its rights to subpoena, which they said presented serious First Amendment issues. The RIAA then accused Verizon of hiding information about the two users, who had allegedly infringed copyrights by downloading hundreds of songs.

In August 2002, a number of consumer and privacy groups, including the Consumers Union, the ACLU and EFF rallied to support Verizon's case.

Verizon and the nonprofits argued that the section of the DMCA was unconstitutional and violated Americans' rights to online anonymity. "Purported copyright owners should not have the right to violate protected, anonymous speech with what amounts to a single snap of the fingers," they argued.

The protracted legal battle ended in April with a victory for the RIAA.

On April 24, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates determined that the wording of the 1998 DMCA requires Verizon to provide the RIAA with the users' information. In his decision, Bates found that First Amendment protections regarding anonymous expression do not conflict with the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The ruling means that copyright holders can more readily identify and track consumers using online file-sharing programs, like Kazaa, without the users' knowledge.

Eric Eldred v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General (Jan. 2003):
Eric Eldred, the editor of Eldritch Press, a publisher of free books on the Internet, led the effort to overturn Congress' approval of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. The Act extended the term of all existing and future copyrights by 20 years.

Eldred's lawyer, Lawrence Lessig, a cyber-law expert from Stanford University's Law School, contended that the blanket extension exceeded Congress's power and violated the First Amendment. A number of free expression and technology groups backed Eldred's case, arguing that the 20-year copyright protection "robs the American public of the rich and diverse public domain guaranteed by the Constitution."

The federal government countered that the 1998 Act promotes the arts by protecting their economic value and thereby offering greater incentives to create new works.

In January 2003, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to uphold the Sonny Bono act. The decision meant entertainment companies and other copyright holders retained their rights to books, music, movies and other creative materials for another 20 years.

RIAA v. Napster (Feb. 2001):
A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that Napster, the trailblazing file-swapping network that allowed users to trade and download music for free, must stop trading copyrighted material. The RIAA contended that Napster, created by Shawn Fanning when he was 19 years old, enabled widespread online piracy.

Siding with the RIAA, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Napster was liable for "vicarious copyright infringement." The court also ordered Napster to prevent users of its search index from accessing content that could potentially lead to copyright infringement. Indeed, several record companies and rock groups, such as Metallica, sued Napster for copyright violations.

The ruling effectively shut the Web site down. The company discontinued its services in March 2001, filing for bankruptcy a year later.

-- By Liz Harper, Online NewsHour