Decisions to make
ISPs are beginning to come to terms with the subtleties of the peer-to-peer situation. Most have complied with traditional takedown notices and are just realising that the new model takes them away from familiar territory.
An EarthLink representative, while declining comment on specific instances, said the DMCA does not give the company responsibility for acting on complaints about content located on its subscribers' computers.
AOL Time Warner's America Online declined to comment on the issue. Verio, which has taken positions defending its subscribers' free speech in the past, said that it is "still looking into all the issues."
Perhaps the most vocal opponent of the copyright holders' actions has been USIIA's McClure. He says his association has full sympathy for the record industry's motives and does not want to defend people who are violating copyrights. But he can not accept a role for ISPs that requires them to monitor or block content that is not on their own servers, he says.
"This is another effort to force ISPs to carry a mantle of liability that they should not have," McClure said. "If you follow this logic to its extreme, we will have to go after Ford or Chrysler every time there is a bank robbery, just because one of their cars was used for the getaway."
The different interpretations of the law make it likely that the tension will rise as more people move from Napster and into file-swapping networks that are not linked to a single company. This model threatens the delicate balance struck between the two powerful camps during the DMCA negotiations--unless a court steps in to give clear guidance.
"ISPs have to be an integral part of the process," the RIAA's Creighton said.
