Recording Industry vs The People: Upcoming Court Dates: Open to the Public

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Upcoming Court Dates: Open to the Public

All proceedings open to the public. All interested parties are invited to attend.

Wednesday, December 7, 2005. 4:30 P.M. USDC, SDNY. New York, NY. Judge Sweet. Loud v. Does. Conference.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005. 3:00 P.M. USDC, SDNY. New York, NY. Judge Karas. Elektra v. Barker. Pre-motion conference for motion to dismiss complaint.

Thursday, January 5, 2006. 2:00 P.M. USDC, SDNY. New York, NY. Judge Holwell. Interscope v. Does. 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 17B. Conference.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006. 4:00 P.M. USDC, EDNY. Brooklyn, NY. Magistrate Judge Levy. Maverick Recording v. Goldshteyn. Courtroom 619, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY. Conference.

Note: If you are aware of upcoming court dates in RIAA v. Consumer cases, please email information to musiclitigation@earthlink.net.
Thank you.
-R.B.

Keywords: copyright download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaaradar

17 comments:

Anonymous said...: Thanks for setting up this blog!; October 19, 2005 at 3:35:00 AM EDT
raybeckerman said...: My pleasure. Thank you for your support.; October 19, 2005 at 8:27:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: MR.BECKERMAN:ANOTHER MINOR BEING SUED IN RACINE WI.LOOKING FOR LEGAL HELP IN THIS MATTER. THESE PEOPLE ARE HEARTLESS.; October 19, 2005 at 3:14:00 PM EDT
raybeckerman said...: If the people contact me, and give me information about their situation, I will forward it to the Electronic Frontier Foundation with a request for legal assistance in the Racine, Wisconsin, area.; October 20, 2005 at 10:52:00 AM EDT
raybeckerman said...: By the way, there happens to be a good copyright lawyer in Racine, Wisconsin, who might be willing to get involved. His name is Linc Murphy. His phone number is 262-637-8551. Tell him Ray Beckerman and Ty Rogers from New York City recommended him.; October 20, 2005 at 4:04:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: Been contacted by CNBC to do the big idea. how about the Chans joining and maybe some other lawsuite victims. racine wi.; October 21, 2005 at 2:21:00 PM EDT
raybeckerman said...: If you want to get in touch with the Chans contact Mrs. Chan's attorney John Hermann in Berkley, Michigan.; October 31, 2005 at 3:33:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: If CNBC folks want to contact me about it, I'll probably be able to get them RIAA victims to interview.; October 31, 2005 at 5:22:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: Wonderful site, Ray! I've been reading it for a few weeks now. My dad's a lawyer in Alaska, so I know a bit about the law and it's refreshing to read about someone who's willing to take it to the RIAA! Keep up the good work!; October 31, 2005 at 10:19:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: Hi Ray info has been sent to cnbc byattorney helping me in milwaukee. thanks for your help in this but it looks like i am going to have yo fold my cards. have until nov 7th to settle for $6000.00 or start court proceedings against me and my daughter jointly. what a shame a year of fighting just to pay more money; November 1, 2005 at 2:11:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: what a shame a year of fighting just to pay more money

Interesting comment. I don't know who you are; perhaps you're legit. But what you wrote above sure looks like something an RIAA shakedown thug would write.; November 2, 2005 at 10:47:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...: Maverick recording company et.al vs David Bink. Case No:05-c-0332 if you care to check my legitamacy.I dont want to give these scumbags a dime but they have me and my daughter jacked up against the wall and just keep coming at us with more dicoverys to fill out, and now want to start court depositions.; November 2, 2005 at 1:48:00 PM EST
Jonathan said...: Dave,
I hope things turn out OK for you. It sounds like they're engaging in some major harrassment. Do you have good representation?; November 2, 2005 at 10:05:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: THANKS; RECIEVED THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT TODAY. WANT MY DAUGHTER TO SIGN OFF ON IT.IWAS ALWAYS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION MINORS CANT SIGN LEGAL DOCUMENTS. BUT MAYBE IN THIS CASE IT LEGAL? I DONT KNOW.; November 4, 2005 at 6:38:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Sorry to hear that.

To the rest of my readers, I just want to say that my blog isn't about giving in to the RIAA, it's about fighting back.

Personally I would rather have seen Dave use his $6k to fight them, instead of using it to feed them.; November 4, 2005 at 10:20:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: RAY: NO DISRESPECT INTENDED TO YOUR WEB SITE. GOD BLESS FOR YOUR INTEREST. THOUSANDS HAVE BEEN SPENT THE LAST YEAR FIGHTING AND I HAVE NO INTENT ON STOPPING. I WILL JUST HAVE TO GO IN A DIFFRENT DIRECTION OTHER THAN A COURTROOM. MY LIMITED FINANCES STOP ME THERE, BUT I WANT TO ORGANIZE A BOYCOTT OF BUYING MUSIC. SOMETHING THAT HURTS THE POCKETBOOK ALWAYS GETS ATTENTION DAVE.; November 5, 2005 at 10:14:00 AM EST
raybeckerman said...: Thanks for kind words and support, Dave. I wish you and your family all the best in everything, and a healthy and happy Thanksgiving.

We're all in this together, and one day -- hopefully soon -- the judges will get wise to how they've been made fools of, and will start shutting this charade down.; November 5, 2005 at 5:03:00 PM EST

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