Recording Industry vs The People: September 2007

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Bobby and Michelle Santangelo File Opposition to RIAA Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

In Elektra v. Santangelo II the defendants have filed their opposition to the RIAA's motion to dismiss counterclaims.

Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to RIAA Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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

Friday, September 28, 2007

Ars Technica Article on Wendy Seltzer Talk At Cornell : Universities Should Resist Copyright Bullies

Good article in Ars Technica on recent talk by Wendy Seltzer at Cornell:

Copyright lawyer tells universities to resist "copyright bullies"

By Nate Anderson | Published: September 28, 2007 - 12:55PM CT

Wendy Seltzer, the founder of the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse and a former EFF staff attorney, gave a talk yesterday at Cornell (RealPlayer required) on "Protecting the University from Copyright Bullies." The bullies in question are the RIAA, and the issue is the recording industry's current campaign of both litigation and political pressure. Should universities assist the music industry in identifying the "pirates," or should they do everything in their power to resist?

The title of Seltzer's talk gives the game away. She believes that the mission of the university is to promote academic freedom, research, the testing of boundaries, and the learning of personal responsibility by students and researchers. An open network facilitates such things; one that is filtered and used to watch the activities of its users does not, in her view, produced the sorts of effects that universities want.

The campus has become the latest battleground in the war on file-sharing. The RIAA has taken its fight to the halls of Congress, where it recently failed to secure some legislation that would have required colleges and universities to implement content filtering solutions on their networks and would direct the government to produce a list of the top 25 infringing schools. "Why Congress should be getting into the business of naming names and pointing fingers is beyond me," Seltzer said.

Complete article

Commentary & discussion:

afterdawn.com

Motley Fool: "RIAA Changes Gears Just Before Hitting Brick Wall"

The Motley Fool investors' web site has posted a second article, "RIAA Changes Gears Just Before Hitting Brick Wall", following up on their article published earlier this week, "RIAA's Day in Court Nearly Over", saying that

[the "making available"]claim used to be a central pillar in the RIAA strategy, because it's fairly easy to show that some files were made available for download from a given IP address. Easy money if the lawsuit were to go anywhere.

But few of them ever did, and many suits have been thrown out because it isn't actually illegal to have a pile of files ready for others to download. Someone actually has to download them, which is a much harder point to prove. Sony BMG (NYSE: SNE), Warner Music (NYSE: WMG), Vivendi's (OTC BB: VIVEF.PK) Universal Music, and EMI (OTC BB: EMIPY.PK) can't lean on that crutch anymore.

Complete article

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
TechDirt
Google Finance (Warner:NYSE:WMG)
Investor Village (SCOX Message Board)

Thursday, September 27, 2007

First RIAA Jury Trial to Start Tuesday October 2nd in Duluth, Minnesota, in Virgin v. Thomas; Motion for "Summary Adjudication" Denied

The RIAA's motion for "summary adjudication" was denied last week, and the jury trial in Virgin v. Thomas is now scheduled to begin Tuesday, October 2nd, at 9:00 AM, before Hon. Michael Davis, at the federal courthouse in Duluth, Minnesota:

417 Federal Building
515 W. 1st Street
Duluth, Minnesota

Proceedings are open to the public.

This is a case in which the RIAA has no evidence that the defendant, Ms. Jammie Thomas, committed any copyright infringement. The RIAA has claimed that it will call Dr. Doug Jacobson and Cary Sherman as witnesses, as well as employees of the various record companies and of SafeNet/MediaSentry.

Ms. Thomas is represented by Brian Toder of Chestnut & Cambronne, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The RIAA is represented by Richard Gabriel and Timothy Reynolds of Holmes Roberts & Owen, located in Denver, Colorado.

This is believed to be the first jury trial since the RIAA began its litigation campaign more than 4 years ago.

Order Setting October 2nd as date certain for trial*
Plaintiffs' Statement of the Case*
Defendant's Statement of the Case*
Plaintiffs' Witness List*
Order Denying RIAA Motion for "Summary Adjudication"*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net
Idolator
Knoxville News Sentinel
Groklaw
Geek News Central
TechDirt
Slashdot
The Nerd Insider
afterdawn.com
MetaFilter Community Weblog

[Note: Any additional commentary and discussion about the Virgin v. Thomas jury trial will be posted in "Citizen Coverage of Virgin v. Thomas Jury Trial" above.]

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

RIAA Abandons "Making Available" in New Complaints Being Filed

It appears that our prediction that RIAA's "programatic" lawyers would abandon their novel "making available" theory has come true, as we have learned that new complaints which are being filed (a) replace the old boilerplate with new boilerplate culled from the RIAA's boilerplate interrogatory answers, and (b) have jettisoned "making available" altogether.

Meanwhile, the new complaint, which falsely alleges that the RIAA's investigator "detected an individual" downloading and uploading, should be met with dismissal motions as well.

See "Practice Tip: I recommend that defendants' lawyers consider making motions to dismiss complaint or motions for judgment on pleadings" and "Practice Tip: Dr. Doug Jacobson's Testimony Refutes the RIAA Averment that its Investigator "Detected an Individual"

Commentary & discussion:

Motley Fool

Motion to Quash Subpoenas Granted in University of South Florida case, Interscope v. Does 1-40, for Improper Service of Subpoena

We have been advised that the motion by University of South Florida students in Interscope v. Does 1-40, in Tampa, Florida, has been granted, based upon the RIAA's improper service of the subpoena.

The following is the court's docket entry:

The following transaction was entered on 9/25/2007 at 3:55 PM EDT and filed on 9/25/2007 Case Name: Interscope Records et al v. Does Case Number:8:07-cv-1008 Filer: Document Number: 30 Docket Text: MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas G. Wilson : Motion Hearing held on 9/25/2007 re [14] MOTION for protective order or in the
alternative to quash ex parte subpoena filed by Doe #37, Doe #21. Oral
argument by the parties. Motion granted on the ground it was not properly served. (2:45-3:38) (Williams, Carrie)

The students are represented by Michael Wasylik of Ricardo & Wasylik, in Dade City, Florida.

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica

RIAA Opposes Motion to Quash Made by Oklahoma State University Students in Arista v. Does 1-11

The RIAA has filed its opposition papers to the motion to quash made by Oklahoma State University students in Arista v. Does 1-11

Declaration of Moshe D. Rothman in Opposition to Motion to Quash*
RIAA Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Quash*
Exhibit 3 List of Ex Parte Orders*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet

Monday, September 24, 2007

Motley Fool article: "RIAA's Day in Court Nearly Over"

Thanks to Jon Newton of p2pnet.net for bringing this to my attention. Interesting article published on investment web site Motley Fool:

RIAA's Day in Court Nearly Over
By Anders Bylund September 24, 2007

The music industry's lawsuit crusade against defenseless college students and housewives appears to have hit the skids lately. That might mean it's almost time for socially responsible investors to start looking at music publishers again, after their long industrywide hiatus from research lists.

Sympathy for the devil
Warner Music (NYSE: WMG), Sony (NYSE: SNE) BMG, Universal Music, and EMI (OTC BB: EMIPY.PK), the main movers behind the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), may have expected easy victories when they began their much-maligned campaign to sue alleged illegal music downloaders. But instead of settling their cases for a few thousand dollars each, many defendants decided to fight back -- with great success.

Some lawsuits have proven ridiculous from the outset, targeting computer-illiterates and dead people, or accusing grandmothers of downloading gangsta rap. Others have been dismissed for a lack of evidence against the purported file-sharers. Nearly every standard weapon in the recording industry's legal arsenal has been proven ineffectual at best, and unconstitutional at worst.

Complete article

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Tanya Andersen's Motion for Attorneys Fees Granted by Magistrate: "these plaintiffs ... should be deterred"

Tanya Andersen's attorneys fees motion in Atlantic v. Andersen has been granted by the Magistrate Judge to whom the question was referred. U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas issued a 15-page decision in which he ruled as follows:

defendant incurred substantial fees before the claims against her were dismissed, including those incurred to file her motion for summary judgment and to respond to a motion to dismiss her counterclaims with prejudice. During that time, plaintiffs were either unable to obtain, or chose not to produce, significant evidence to support their claims.....when plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005.....

Whatever plaintiffs' reasons for the manner in which they have prosecuted this case, it does not appear to be justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law..... In this case, plaintiffs dismissed their claims before any rulings on any significant legal issues under the Copyright Act, or the factual issues associated with plaintiffs' claim. Choosing that course, on this record, should be deterred in light of its potential chilling effect on the public's access to creative works. If this were to become a more typical course in prosecuting the type of allegations faced by defendant, it is reasonably foreseeable that members of the public would be more hesitant to use the Internet to share creative works in general, regardless of whether their specific conduct violated copyright law or occupied an area yet to be addressed by copyright law.

Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case. Plaintiffs exerted a significant amount of control over the course of discovery, repeatedly and successfully seeking the court's assistance through an unusually extended and contentious period of discovery disputes. Nonetheless, after ample opportunity to develop their claims, they dismissed them at the point they were required to produce evidence for the court's consideration of the merits..... this case provides too little assurance that a prosecuting party won't deem an infringement claim unsupportable until after the prevailing defendant has been forced to mount a considerable defense, and undergo all that entails, including the incurring of substantial attorney fees.

The parties will be afforded an opportunity to file objections to the Magistrate's report, after which time it will be submitted to the District Judge for finalization.

Decision of Magistrate Judge Granting Defendant's Attorneys Fees Motion*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
Slyck
The Inquirer
The Blogging Journalist
p2pnet.net
Ars Technica
TechDirt
JanisIan.com Message Forum
Journalista!
The Inquirer (Italian)
TechSpot

Friday, September 21, 2007

OneWebDay -- Saturday, September 22nd

Today (Saturday September 22nd) is OneWebDay

Celebrate the richness and vibrancy of the internet, and be ready to defend it from the likes of the RIAA.

-R.B.

Practice Tip: Dr. Doug Jacobson's Testimony Refutes the RIAA Averment that its Investigator "Detected an Individual"

For those of you who may have occasion to put the lie to the RIAA's false averment that its investigator "detected an individual", here* is a link to some excerpts from the February 23, 2007, testimony of the RIAA's expert witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson, in UMG v. Lindor, including the admission that the RIAA's "investigation" does NOT detect individuals.

Incredibly, the RIAA continues to make this misstatement. See, e.g., Amended Complaint in Interscope v. Rodriguez and transcript of June 29, 2007, conference in Warner v. Cassin.

The full deposition transcript of Dr. Jacobson's testimony is here. Links to the exhibits are here.

Some of the useful references are:

p 59 li 9 - p 60 li 12

p 85 ll 8-23

p 85 li 24 - p. 87 li 11

p 104 ll 6-11

p 145 ll 15-17

-R.B.

5 Out of 6 Counterclaims Against RIAA in UMG v. Del Cid are Upheld by Court, Including Counterclaim for Conspiracy to Commit Extortion

In UMG v. Del Cid, in Tampa, Florida, the defendant had interposed counterclaims, including claims for extortion and conspiracy. On August 16, 2007, she amended her counterclaims*.

The RIAA moved to dismiss all six counterclaims.

The Court has returned its decision, granting the motion as to one counterclaim, and denying it as to the other five, including the counterclaims for extortion and conspiracy.

At the outset the Court rejected entirely the RIAA's assertion of the Noerr-Pennington defense as a basis for dismissal, since the doctrine does not protect "sham litigation", and Ms. Del Cid had alleged that the infringement suits were "sham litigation".

Copyright misuse.

The Court dismissed the third counterclaim, for copyright misuse, saying that it might constitute a defense, but did not qualify as a "cause of action".

Trespass, extortion, conspiracy, Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, declaratory judgment of noninfringement

The court sustained defendant's counterclaims for

-trespass to defendant's personal property based on the RIAA's having accessed files on Ms. Del Cid's computer without her permission,
-violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act based on the RIAA's unauthorized intrusion into defendant's computer,
-violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
-a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, and
-conspiracy to commit extortion, since defendant sufficiently alleged "a peculiar power of coercion possessed by Plaintiffs [by] virtue of their combination, which an individual alone would not possess".

Defendant's sixth counterclaim, which the Court upheld, alleges:

Plaintiffs have conspired among themselves and with others to commit the
following illegal acts to further the ends of their conspiracy: (a) use of private
investigators to conduct investigations in Florida against Florida residents,
without license, in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a
protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining
information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030; and (c) extortion and attempted
extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951.

Ms. Del Cid is represented by Michael Wasylik of Ricardo & Wasylik, in Dade City, Florida.

Amended Counterclaims*
Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims as to Third Counterclaim and Denying Motion as to First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet

RIAA Targets 22 Colleges; Continues to Avoid Confrontation with Harvard

p2pnet reports that the RIAA has filed its eighth round of "early settlement" letters to twenty-two colleges. (Noticeably absent from the list is Harvard, where certain law professors have counseled resistance to the RIAA and told the RIAA to "take a hike".)

The unlucky institutions on the receiving end of the 403 new letters include Arizona State University (35 pre-litigation settlement letters), Carnegie Mellon University (13), Cornell University (19), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (30), Michigan State University (16), North Dakota State University (17), Purdue University — West Lafayette and Calumet campuses (49), University of California — Santa Barbara (13), University of Connecticut (17), University of Maryland — College Park (23), University of Massachusetts — Amherst and Boston campuses (52), University of Nebraska — Lincoln (13), University of Pennsylvania (31), University of Pittsburgh (14), University of Wisconsin — Eau Claire, Madison, Milwaukee, Stevens Point, Stout and Whitewater campuses (62)."

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet
Billboard
Slashdot
ZeroPaid
The Badger Herald

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Rae J Schwartz Moves to Dismiss Complaint in Elektra v. Schwartz

In Elektra v. Schwartz, the Brooklyn case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the defendant is making a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief (technically a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)), based upon the recent decision in Interscope v. Rodriguez.

September 20, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. David G. Trager (re Motion for Judgment on Pleadings)*
September 20, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Robert M. Levy (re Request for Stay Pending Determination of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings)*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica
Slashdot
p2pnet.net

WolfPack Student Named as "John Doe" making motion to vacate ex parte order

We have just learned of a fifth motion to vacate ex parte order being made, in the RIAA's campaign against college students, this one by a "John Doe" who is a student at North Carolina State University, in LaFace v. Does 1-38.

The student has until October 17th to file a motion to vacate.

He is being represented by attorney Steve Robertson, of Robertson, Medlin & Blocker, and is looking for other NC State "John Does" to join him and share expenses.

This is the 5th motion of which we are aware by college student "John Does" to vacate the ex parte order. The others were made in:

Arista v. Does 1-11 (Oklahoma City, OK)
Arista v. Does 1-21 (D. Mass.)
Interscope v. Does 1-40 (Tampa FL) and
Virgin v. Does 1-33 (Knoxville, TN)

To the best of our knowledge, all 4 motions are presently pending.

Motion for Extension of Time*
Order Granting Extension of Time*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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