Monday, November 21, 2005

Under Decisions by Judge Newcomer, RIAA is Improperly Joining "John Does"

According to the 2004 decisions and orders of Judge Newcomer, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it is improper for the RIAA to continue to bring single cases against a large number of John Does.

Judge Newcomer's decisions, prohibiting such joinder, are linked below.

First Order Denying Joinder (See Second Order Shown At This First Link)

Second Order Denying Joinder

The RIAA has a practice of starting off its torrents of litigation
with massive, secret suits against John Doe defendants who do not
know they've even been sued. Invariably these cases name dozens,
scores, or even hundreds of different "John Does" in a single lawsuit.

I recently came across the above decisions from Judge Newcomer in the
Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, who explained in very clear
terms why the law does not permit the joinder of the multiple John Does.

Judge Newcomer pointed out that none of the normal indicia for
joinder are present:
1. There is nothing in the complaint indicating that the claims result from
the same incident or incidents;
2. The claims against the defendants would all require different
trials, since there would be different evidence, different theories,
different defenses, etc.
3. There will almost separately be different issues of fact;
4. There is no indication that plaintiff's alleged injuries arose
from the same transactions or occurrences.

In BMG v. Does, the case he was deciding, which was against
204 defendants, the judge required the RIAA to file 203 new
lawsuits.

Since these decisions are from 2004, and since judicial precedents
are usually followed by lawyers, it is a bit difficult for me to understand
why the RIAA has been proceeding as though Judge Newcomer's
decisions do not exist.

-R.B.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

My question is this: How many times must I "pay" for a single song? Example: I purchase my satellite feed through a certain company, LEGALLY, at $65/monthly. During this month I have purchased the Led Zeppelin ditty that Cadilac uses for it's advertisements. So NOW I'm being told, in order for me to own a copy of the Led Zeppelin ditty, I must purchase it again? NOT!!! I'd rather not hear it! This is pure GREED, plain & simple!

Let's say I've purchased the DVD of Forrest Gump. This purchase includes the sound track. Why must I purchase this again? Someone, I'm sure, has paid the royalties for the tunes to be a part of the DVD that "I" have just legally purchased. Why should the RIAA be paid more than once?

If I remember correctly, a vinyl copy was promotionally given to adoring fans to lure said fans to the LIVE concert. Guess that was a lie also. Go on RIAA and count your greenbacks now!

It is a pity the RIAA is SOOOO greedy that they make the 'paying' customer 'keep paying' through the nose. I, for one will NOT buy any music ANYMORE!

Signed,
Fed up in the USA!

Anonymous said...

So, is this yet more grounds to have existing lawsuits thrown out, or at least require the RIAA to re-file all the lawsuits individually?

Sounds like a lot of extra work for them. Pity.

Anonymous said...

My question is.... when can we start forcing them to foot the bills for these law suits? that would shut their dirty money grubbing faces really quick.

I really give serious thought to not paying my taxes anymore... Its like throwing money at the mafia...

zi said...

Judge Newcomer is a smart man. Here's to looking out for the rights of ordinary systems and giving us some hope to an end to this theater of the absurd. But while I wait, I look forward to chuckling at more stories of the RIAA suing dead people.