Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Judge Says No to Rae J. Schwartz Summary Judgment Motion Since RIAA Claims it has Letter from AOL Confirming Infringement

In Elektra v. Schwartz, in Brooklyn, Judge Trager said Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment motion would probably be denied because the RIAA claims it is in possession of a letter from AOL "confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed....".

December 4, 2006, Order of Hon. David G. Trager*

Copies of the underlying documents are as follows:

December 1, 2006, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Judge David G. Trager*
Elektra v. Wilke, Affidavit in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery*
Elektra v. Wilke, Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice*

Copies of the prior letters, and of Ms. Schwartz's answer and counterclaim, are as follows:

October 28, 2006, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Judge Trager (In connection with summary judgment motion)*
November 1, 2006, Letter of Richard J. Guida to Judge Trager (In connection with summary judgment motion)*
December 1, 2006, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Judge David G. Trager*
Elektra v. Wilke, Affidavit in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery*
Elektra v. Wilke, Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice*
Answer and Counterclaim*
Exhibit A to Answer and Counterclaim (Amicus Brief in Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster)*

* 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

2 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

the fact that America Online confirmed that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed provides a good faith basis for the current lawsuit against defendant.

Ray,
I think I understand from the documents I have read so far about your lawsystem that your judges must see claims in the most favourable light for plaintiffs when it comes to motions, but what I don't understand here is how come that AOL can confirm here "an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed when this is something that not even the plaintiffs are able to cite any "when's and how's" this alledged distributions and downloadings took place.
I thought the only FACT that AOL could possibly confirm in a letter by looking in their database is if someone is the billpayer for an internet account that has a specific Number at a specific time

I guess Judge Trager missunderstands what AOL can possibly confirm ater all and has confirmed in this Case.

Ray Beckerman said...

We'll have to see this so-called letter. I seriously doubt it says what the RIAA lawyer said it said.