Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Defendant Paul Wilke in Chicago Makes Motion for Summary Judgment, in Elektra v. Wilke

Defendant Paul Wilke has made a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Elektra v. Wilke, in Chicago federal court.

Motion for Summary Judgment*

In his motion Mr. Wilke states that

1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under.
2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded] He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CD's owned by Mr. Wilke.
3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.

Mr. Wilke is represented by Daliah Saper of Saper Law Offices 188 West Randolph, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60601 312.404.0066

* Document available online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


StephenH said...

I think the RIAA wanted to dismiss, rather than have a summary judgement against them, and set a potential precedent of a consumer case leading to a formal "Not Guilty" Verdict. I bet they realize that their case is weak at best, and thought that dismissal was easier than oppose a summary judgement motion.

bluespark said...

That's not how precedent works. Legal precedent is specific only to the particular dispositive fact on which the precedent-setting law is based. Thus, an opinion on summary judgment could establish precedent that one person cannot answer for the infringement of another (a proposition already established by existing precedent). Though a court could analogize to different facts (and determine, for example, that one person cannot be held liable for a different action of another person), the precedent is the law itself, not the outcome.