Recording Industry vs The People: First Annual Peer-to-Peer Litigation Summit

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

First Annual Peer-to-Peer Litigation Summit

First Annual Peer-to-Peer Litigation Summit

When: November 3, 2005

Where: Northwestern University Law School, Chicago, IL

In September 2003, members of the Recording Association of America filed the
first wave of lawsuits against individual peer-to-peer (P2P) file
sharers. Two years and 14,000 lawsuits later, both P2P file-sharing and
file-sharing litigation continue unabated, and members of the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA) are now suing individual Internet users as
well. It's time to step back and consider where this litigation has been,
where it's going, and whether there is a better way.

This one-day conference brings together public and private defense
attorneys, clients, investigators, advocates and academics to discuss the
latest developments in peer-to-peer litigation. How do the RIAA and MPAA go
about identifying plaintiffs? What are the most effective legal strategies
and tactics? Is it better to settle immediately, or fight it out in the
courts? How is this impacting the individuals sued? What is the role of ISPs
in this quagmire? Should Congress step in and, if so, what legislation is
needed? Are there other ways to compensate authors for their
works? Panelists will address these topics and more. Audience members will
be strongly encouraged to share their experiences as well.

Cost: $150

For more information and to register for this conference, please go to
www.signmeup.com/51363.

Sponsors: Privacy Resolutions, P.C. and Electronic Frontier Foundation

11 comments:

Anonymous said...: RIAA is nothing but a "schoolyard bully" taking the milk money from those that are afraid to fight back. The solution is very simple, boycott anything and anyone having anything to do with RIAA. Hit 'em in the pocketbook, starve 'em. If and when we do that, they will stop this insanity. Then maybe we can get back to enjoying the music once again.; October 6, 2005 at 3:22:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: This looks great. Wish I could make it. These issues are at the forefront for all of us who care about our rights. Great event. Way to go.; October 6, 2005 at 4:09:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: I'd like to contribute $20 to a legal defense fund for victims of the MPAA/RIAA. Can anyone suggest a reputable organization to donate to?
This conference sure seems like a good start.; October 6, 2005 at 4:51:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: Immediately after I posted the above comment, my router began receiving (and discarding) hundreds of packets per second from emule p2p clients (port 4672). WTF? I don't even have emule or any other p2p application installed! The packet storm has continued now for over half an hour. Am I being set up? Aargh! (Putting on my tinfoil hat.); October 6, 2005 at 5:51:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: I believe you can make any donations at www.eff.org; October 6, 2005 at 9:14:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: SONY BMG makes tape recorders, VCRs, CD and DVD burners. They provide thieves with the means to steal copyrighted materials. Corrupt RIAA lawyers go after kids for downloading music. Whrn do artists sue both Columbia Records and Cilumbia Pictures for undercutting the sale of both CDs and DVDs?; October 7, 2005 at 5:44:00 AM EDT
raybeckerman said...: I know the depth of hatred for the RIAA, but please refrain from profanity in your comments.
Thanks.
Ray; October 8, 2005 at 4:53:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: help being sued by the MPAA in california i need legal assistance please contact me at sunshine3224@sbcglobal.net; October 9, 2005 at 12:52:00 AM EDT
raybeckerman said...: Dear "anonymous" at sunshine3224@sbcglobal.net

Please check the Electronic Frontier Foundation's listing of California lawyers. http://subpoenadefense.org/legal.htm#ca

If that doesn't work email me at musiclitigation@earthlink.net and I'll try to help you find an attorney in your area.; October 10, 2005 at 4:24:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: Im being sued by the MPAA and wish to fight this i have found a lawyer but need help with legal costs all support and advice greatly appreciated please see my web page
http://www.webspawner.com/users/sunshine3224/index.html; October 30, 2005 at 4:53:00 AM EST
ratzass5 said...: i am a victem if the RIAA's attack on the American family.I was offered a settlement deal for me to pay the 4500.00 and the lawsuit would go away. I could not pay so a few months later, I received a copy of a default judgement against me stating that I had failed to plead or otherwise defend the action against me.It does not even say how much I now owe them. If $4500'00 is what most attorney's fees would be to even start a defense , it is probably the same amount they will collect for themselves. What does that leave for the artists they are supposedly filing these actions on behalf of. I would like to challenge the RIAA to supply a record of dispersements to artists vs a record of fees collected for thr thugs at RIAA.Then manbe the American public will see who is really ripping off recording artists.How much money did they collect for New York Doll bassist, Arthur "Killer" Kane before the died penniless, in 2004. Or the hunderds of other artists that the recording industry has chewed up and spit out; October 28, 2007 at 1:31:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'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
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[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