Ars Technica's Julian Sanchez sez, "Just wrote up a piece on a pretty fascinating case, in which EFF filed an amicus brief, brought by Echostar under the DMCA against a maker of satellite receivers. Since DMCA makes liability turn on whether a device has a 'significant commercial purpose' that doesn't involve IP violation, Echostar had wanted to get the names of hundreds of thousands of people who'd bought receiver boxes. Also raises the troubling question of whether making an open/hackable device exposes you to liability if enough people misuse that device."
Privacy interests are typically afforded deference only to the extent that they implicate some tangible harm. The same standard generally obtains in privacy tort law, Lohmann told Ars, but here the court was prepared to afford the privacy claim added weight, because it was being invoked "as a shield, not a sword"–that is, to block future disclosure, not to win damages for past disclosure–on behalf of third parties not directly involved in the lawsuit.
Moreover, EFF's brief argued, Echostar's subpoenas were "especially troubling in light of past litigation" where another satellite TV provider, DirecTV, had similarly obtained customer information in the course of a civil suit against a device manufacturer. The company then sent out 170,000 letters pressuring customers to agree to a $3,500 "settlement" or face litigation. Attorneys for Echostar dismissed this as mere speculation, averring that the company had "no present intent to initiate additional lawsuits," but adding that "customers that are found to be engaged in satellite piracy should not be permitted to use so-called 'privacy rights' as a shield to avoid detection and civil liability."
Court: Echostar can't get Coolsat customer data in DMCA case
(Thanks, Julian!)
