Recording Industry vs The People

Friday, January 27, 2012

ReDigi files opposition to Capitol Records preliminary injunction motion

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, defendant has filed its opposition to the plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion.

Declaration of John Ossenmacher in opposition to preliminary injunction motion
Declaration of Larry Rudolph in opposition to preliminary injunction motion
Declaration of Ray Beckerman in opposition to preliminary injunction motion
Defendant's memorandum of law in opposition to preliminary injunction motion

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Capitol Records opposes ReDigi summary judgment conference request

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, plaintiff has submitted a letter opposing ReDigi's request for a premotion conference in connection with its contemplated summary judgment motion.

January 24, 2012, letter of Richard Mandel to Court

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Capitol Records moves for preliminary injunction in ReDigi case

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, plaintiff has submitted a request for a preliminary injunction. The Court has directed ReDigi to respond by Friday January 27th at 4:00 pm, and scheduled a conference for February 6th.

January 20, 2012, order scheduling preliminary injunction motion
Plaintiff's declarations
Plaintiff's memorandum of law

Friday, January 20, 2012

ReDigi files answer & requests summary judgment conference in Capitol Records v ReDigi

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, defendant has filed its answer, and requested a conference in contemplation of a summary judgment motion.

Answer
January 19th Letter of Morlan Ty Rogers requesting summary judgment premotion conference

Commentary & discussion:

Digital Music News

Monday, January 09, 2012

Capitol Records sues ReDigi in federal court in Manhattan

On January 6th, Capitol Records filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, in federal court in Manhattan, against ReDigi Inc., a website which provides a used marketplace for digital music.

The judges assigned to the case are U. S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan and U. S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.

Attorneys for plaintiff are Cowan Leibowitz & Latman

Attorneys for defendant are Ray Beckerman, P.C.

Defendant's time to respond to the complaint expires January 27th.

Complaint

Commentary & discussion:

New York Times
Variety
Billboard
Kip Currier Copyright Blog

Jammie Thomas-Rasset's time to file brief extended to February 6th

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, defendant's motion to extend her time to file her brief to February 6th has been granted.

Order extending defendant's time to file brief responding to RIAA's brief

Friday, January 06, 2012

Thomas-Rasset lawyers file consent motion to extend time to file brief

In Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, defendant's lawyers have requested a 30-day extension of time in which to file their brief.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Tenenbaum asks District Court not to grant remittitur unless it reduces to statutory minimum

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the first brief was filed by defendant Joel Tenenbaum. His brief appears to argue that the Court should not grant remittitur, unless it reduces the verdict to the statutory minimum.

Defendant's brief after remand

RIAA files appeal brief in Capitol v Thomas-Rasset; MPAA files amicus brief

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has filed its appellate brief, and the MPAA has filed an amicus brief.

The defendant's briefs are presently due to be filed January 6th.

RIAA brief
MPAA Amicus brief

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player

Friday, December 30, 2011

Actual damages for single unauthorized download of software program held to be cost of single license fee

In Real View v. 20-20, an "actual damages" copyright infringement case, the Court held that the actual damages for an unauthorized download of a computer program was limited to the cost of an actual license fee, and reduced the jury's much higher verdict accordingly.

The judge, in the District of Massachusetts, granted remittitur, reducing the jury's verdict of $1,370,590.00 to $4,200.00, unless the plaintiff seeks a new trial.

Decision on damages

Commentary & discussion:

Technology & Marketing Law Blog
techdirt

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player

Judicial quotations

"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove