While the DMCA based legal pugilism between the RIAA and Verizon rages over the ISP's responsibility to turn over accused 'pirate' personal info, the ISP's continue to sheepishly forward threatening letters to their customers at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA, though their level of enthusiasm for the practice clearly isn't substantial. But will casual half hearted requests eventually shift to court orders and prosecution?

Letters from the MPAA and RIAA warning file traders to cease and desist have been common for more than a year. Cox was busy sending letters to Simpsons pirates last summer. Sony music sent out its own round of letters to music traders last spring, and the rate of such "lawyer-grams" has only increased since.

Take this individual for instance, who just yesterday received an e-mail from his ISP warning him that he'd been a little too busy on the file trading circuit:

"You are receiving this notification because we have received complaints which have originated from your DSL line." the letter begins. "The complaints refer to copyright infringement activity originating from your network."

The customer immediately cried foul, claiming that DSLExtreme was stomping on his privacy, assuming that it was his ISP that was doing the threatening and keeping a watchful eye over his file trading adventures.

The reality is that "p2p intelligence" companies like BayTSP scour file trading networks for significant offenders, then report both the files traded and the IP address back to their RIAA/MPAA masters. The music and film industry in turn send a letter to the ISP, whose only responsibility (for the time being) is to pass that letter on to the offender.

"We suggest taking your computer of off your network until the problem is resolved." the letter continues. "This is the only warning you will receive from us and a period of 24 hours has been set so you can take appropriate action. If a second complaint is received after the 24 hour period, your account may be temporarily suspended."

Temporarily suspended? By Whom? The ISP? According to a DSLExtreme employee responding to the claims in our forums, they're simply passing the letter on. "What you do with that information is completely up to you. You may choose to take down the material or leave it on your computer," suggesting that most ISP's really don't care, provided they can't be held responsible for the offense.

And being held liable is the backbone of the entire issue. Some have been quick to paint Verizon as a champion of consumer rights in their courtroom battles, which isn't entirely accurate. Verizon is protecting itself. If the current court order becomes a trend, ISP's could face an endless sea of subpoenas from individuals and organizations claiming their copyrights had been violated without offering proof. Not to mention the impact it would have on their subscriber count.

Were you of the opinion that Verizon was simply "fighting the good fight" on principle?

The Los Angeles Times reports that Verizon is already happily sacrificing customer privacy by turning over several subscribers' personal information to the RIAA in the hopes of getting the ruling suspended or modified. Verizon had hoped there could be a limit set on the number of RIAA subpoenas they would have to process, but so far no agreement has been reached.

The user caught red handed downloading files really can't stomp his feet and demand justice, since DSLExtreme's acceptable use policy clearly dictates that "as a user of DSLExtreme.com, you agree not to use the service in a manner that violates any local, state or federal law." However much the file trading community would like to debate or justify it, it's impossible to argue that file trading is not illegal.

That said, consumer rights advocates are justifiably worried that the RIAA's use of the DMCA to obtain subscriber personal data eliminates the entire concept of due process. Whatever Verizon's motivation, their legal battle should be supported, as the court's interpretation of this particular provision of the DMCA gives companies (or almost anyone) the right to demand the name, address, and phone number of a subscriber without presenting evidence of any kind that they've actually done something wrong.

The case will likely bring a re-examination of the DMCA and some modifications making it more relevant to modern technology, something that many think is long overdue. Perhaps the fact that companies are stretching and warping (see Lexmark case) the vague legislation to serve whatever purpose they see fit is a good indication that something's wrong?

But even if the case is dismissed and the DMCA gets rewritten, how long can the ISP remain the messenger without enforcing the message? How long before they're obligated to both provide a name for each suspect IP address, and be the delivery vessel for bolder legal threats? Verizon has appealed the court ruling, but the courts show every indication of eventually making file traders pay for crossing the line.

How long before the threatening lawyer-gram becomes a subpoena?