Recording Industry vs The People: Shaneasia Morgan Fights Back in the Florida Panhandle

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Shaneasia Morgan Fights Back in the Florida Panhandle

Shaneasia Morgan, sued in Pensacola, Florida, is fighting back, in Virgin v. Morgan. She has filed an answer denying the RIAA's charges, and denying that her non-commercial actions were a copyright infringement. Her answer explains that the type of file sharing of which she is accused would be protected as a fair use. In addition she seeks an award of attorneys fees against the plaintiffs.

In addition to arguing that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional (See November 9th decision of Judge Trager in UMG v. Lindor, in post "Judge Grants Marie Lindor's Motion....."), Ms. Morgan's answer also alleges that since, if she did infringe plaintffs' copyrights, she was an innocent infringer, the statutory damages of $750 per song should be reduced to $200 under copyright Act Section 504(c)(2):

Defendant Morgan lacks technical understanding of the filesharing concept as it has come to be employed on the Internet. Her understanding is that website owners and operators are responsible for determining the intellectual property rights of the content they make available and that she is not required to become a technical expert nor an expert in intellectual property rights in order to browse the Internet without fear of financial disaster from copyright infringement liability. If a service browsed on the Internet has caused her computer to download software and thereby created a shared folder on her computer, it was without her informed knowledge or understanding.

Answer*

A copy of the complaint follows:

Complaint in Virgin v. Morgan, 3:06-cv-342 (N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division)*

Ms. Morgan is represented by George J. Little, a veteran trial lawyer and internet expert, working out of Marianna, Florida.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net

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

5 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...: "Her answer explains that the type of file sharing of which she is accused would be protected as a fair use."
Have not read anything other regarding this case then your posttext yet, but IIRC there was already this case in the court of appeals that downloading, and keeping without paying is copyrightinfringement and not allowed fair use.
And the defense that she did not know what the software is doing is IMHO not very well choosen. In german it's called "Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht" what the judge might say in case of finding her responsible for (non-willfull but unintentional) copyrightinfringement.

The "more then one thousand times the actual damage is unconstitutional"-defense however is IMHO a VERY GOOD defense. If more defendants [ also those that are well aware why they are sued ;-) ] would use that defense then maybe would the RIAA stop their "we sue you for 750$ each song if you don't pay 3750$"-money making sheme.
(which would also give the "guilty guys" some room to litigate with the SS-Center); November 30, 2006 at 10:51:00 AM EST
raybeckerman said...: alter_fritz, George Little is a great lawyer; he knows exactly what he is doing. I predict the RIAA will be sorry they messed with Shaneasia Morgan.; November 30, 2006 at 11:00:00 AM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: I do believe your words, Ray. so probably it's just a technical thingy:
the main claim of the plainftiffs paragraph 14 is just denied by her, she does not demand proof of it!

"Absicht oder Versehen von George Little"?; November 30, 2006 at 11:15:00 AM EST
BasicTek said...: I absolutely love this statement...

statutory damages must necessarily have a
reasonable relationship to the Plaintiffs’ alleged actual damages caused by the alleged
infringement (not some ephemeral speculation on the cause of lost CD sales).
"ephemeral speculation" is priceless but sooo true.

This one is good too...

37. The Plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the
antitrust laws and of public policy, in an attempt to expand their monopoly power into the area of online digital music, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have. As such, they are guilty of misuse of their copyrights.

I sure hope they get a judge that understands what is going on.

Another nail getting hit right on the head...

39. The Plaintiffs have engaged in many acts with respect to this and other similar lawsuits which are an affront to due process, fair dealings, and judicial economy. Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice as imbedded in the Constitution of the United States are offended by the filing and prosecution of this action and by the collusive and oppressive system which has been created and employed by the Plaintiffs to choose defendants least likely to be able to defend themselves in order to allegedly protect large corporations from loss of revenues, which losses are not attributable in any significant way to the alleged actions of the majority of defendants they have chosen to file these actions against.

And the finaly...

48. Defendant Morgan has required the services of the undersigned attorney but is
financially unable to pay for said services. Defendant Morgan obligates herself financially to the
undersigned to the extent that attorneys’ fees may be recoverable in this action. Defendant
Morgan is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees should she prevail in whole or in part in this
action.

This lawyer seems to have done his homework for sure. Now time for a judge to be worth a ....!; November 30, 2006 at 7:15:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: George Little is the right guy for this. He's going to give them hell.; November 30, 2006 at 9:50:00 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