Wednesday, March 21, 2007

New Contested Case in Houston, Texas, Atlantic v. DeMassi

A new contested case has been brought in Houston, Texas, Atlantic v. DeMassi.

Answer and Counterclaims*
Exhibit A (Original Complaint in Arista v. LimeWire)*
Exhibit B (November 2006 Report to USPTO on Filesharing Programs)*

Ms. DeMassi is represented by Donald Scott Mackenzie of Dallas, Texas.

* Document published 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

5 comments:

Michael said...

What does the USPTO have to do with copyright? I was under the impression that the Copyright Office was part of the library of congress, part of the legislative branch and the USPTO only had authority over patents and trademarks, under the executive branch.

AMD FanBoi said...

You know, the wording on these Answers and Counterclaims is just getting more smooth and elegant with each new case. By now there are how many challenges to excessive statuatory damages? If the plantiff's can only collect a few dollars max for each song they can PROVE was infringed, then the only way they can hurt you is to run up crushing legal fees, win in court, and be awarded those fees. And at a few dollars (say $4) per PROVEN infringing song, most people would settle rather than fight, since they have to download and verify each file to prove that is is what it claims to be. I would expect this to be the absolute end of these suits if SCOTUS agrees with their previous rulings on such damage awards.

ryan said...

Lol given the RIAA uses a form letter to sue people it is kinda funny that the replies are getting better. Just like many other area's of their business the RIAA seems to have problems adapting.

Ray Beckerman said...

Yeah but the defendants' lawyers are adapting quite nicely, as amd_fanboi points out.

Alter_Fritz said...

Michael, i understand that the USPTO is mentioned here not for having to do with copyright, but because of the report that they produced that is helpful for defendants to point out the findings about the responsibility of those producers of the p2p programs.
Those findings can be a good defense for those that actually did have p2p programms but defend themself with the "I didn't do it(willfully distribute 20000 files from my entire harddrive)"

(Exhibit B is an interesting read by the way)