Legal issues arising from the RIAA's lawsuits of intimidation brought against ordinary working people, and other important internet law issues. Provided by Ray Beckerman, P.C.
Thanks to Keith Henning of the copywrite.org intellectual property law blog for pointing out that a full set of the filed litigation documents in Capitol v. Thomas is being maintained online by the Justia.com legal research web site at the following URL:
In this television piece on Georgia defendant Laura Beer, the wife of a U.S.. Army soldier, Ms. Beer vows that she will fight until she wins, or is "dead and gone":
It was reported in Ohio University's online publication, "thepost", that after Ohio University paid $60,000 for Dr. Doug Jacobson's "copySense" software by "Audible Magic", and an additional $16,000-per-year in "maintenance", the RIAA's "settlement" letters stopped:
Today, the university uses a nearly $60,000 software and hardware package from Audible Magic to stop file sharing on its network and pays about $16,000 for support, maintenance and regular database updates that allow the system, called CopySense, to detect newly released music.
CopySense compares small portions of copyrighted music files to network traffic. If a match is found, an information technology employee reviews the information and decides whether to deny Internet access to the computer.
The RIAA is still sending DMCA notices, but has received more attention for its monthly waves of about 400 pre-litigation settlement letters, which allege that computers on college campuses nationwide are sharing music. Those letters demanded recipients pay an average of $3,500 to settle a potential copyright infringement lawsuit by multiple record companies.
OU received 100 such letters by mid-April, but has received none since it began using CopySense.
Dr. Jacobson is the RIAA's all-purpose, "disinterested" expert witness. For details about Dr. Jacobson's financial interest in Audible Magic, see Dr. Jacobson's deposition testimony and related exhibits in UMG v. Lindor.
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
To contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense, see below.
The above donation button links to a PayPal account established by Marie Lindor's family for people who may wish to make financial contributions to Ms. Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. Lindor. Contributions are not tax deductible.
In a Rochester, New York, case, Atlantic v. Dangler, Judge David G. Larimer has denied the RIAA's request for a default judgment, on the ground that the evidence the RIAA presented (a) failed to include any details of any distribution or downloading, and (b) failed to prove that the defendant was properly identified as the individual who had operated the file sharing program:
[T]here are significant issues of fact regarding the identification of the defendant from his alleged “online media distribution system” username, an issue not addressed by the record. See Van Limburg Stirum v. Whalen, 1993 WL 241464, at *4 (N.D.N.Y.1993)(“A ‘default is not treated as an absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiff’s right to recover.’”)(quoting Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l. Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir.1975)).
Clearly, plaintiffs are entitled to relief if Dangler downloaded and distributed the Copyrighted Recordings without plaintiffs’ consent. The question this Court must decide is whether plaintiffs have proven that those circumstances exist here. Although the complaint establishes that someone using the “KaZaA” online peer-to-peer file sharing service uploaded the Copyrighted Recordings, or otherwise offered them for distribution, the complaint does not identify details such as the time period during which the violations allegedly took place, or explain how that user, dentified only by the username heavyjeffmc@KaZaA, was determined to be the defendant.
Two months earlier a similar RIAA default judgment application was rejected by Judge Rudi Brewster in San Diego, California, in Interscope v. Rodriguez, on the ground that the complaint failed to allege specific factual details of the type whose absence was noted here by Judge Larimer.
Meanwhile, the court records suggest that neither the College of William & Mary nor the defendants are even aware of the proceedings, never having been served by the RIAA.
[Ed. Note: It is incredible to me that the RIAA thinks it's okay to bring a lawsuit against people without giving notice, and then objects to an amicus curiae trying to come into the case to point out to the judge that there might be another side to the case. These are the worst bullies, and the most unethical lawyers, I have ever seen. - R.B.]
In Atlantic v. Howell, the Arizona case in which a pro se defendant obtained an order vacating the Court's prior order, the Court has adjourned the RIAA's summary judgment motion because Mr. Howell has succeeded in obtaining legal representation from out of town.
A new contested case is being fought in upstate New York, UMG v. Landau.
The complaint in Landau is the new-style complaint which the RIAA first used in Interscope v. Rodriguez after Judge Brewster, in that case, dismissed the RIAA's boilerplate "making available" complaint as "boilerplate" "conclusory" "speculation".
The defendant is represented by Paul Rapp of Housatonic, Massachusetts.
In Arista v. Does 1-11, the RIAA's ex parte discovery suit against Oklahoma State University students, the RIAA has filed papers opposing the students' motion to strike.
In UMG v. Lindor, the defendant's son has moved for reconsideration of Judge Trager's order affirming the Magistrate Judge's denial of his request for attorneys fees.
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
To contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense, use this button:
The above donation button links to a PayPal account established by Marie Lindor's family for people who may wish to make financial contributions to Ms. Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. Lindor. Contributions are not tax deductible.
In MGM v. Grokster, the Court has decided, in an 83-page decision, that an injunction should be issued against Streamcast (owner of Morpheus), and that a permanent "Special Master" should be appointed to supervise compliance with the injunction.
The injunction, once it is issued, will require Streamcast "to use the most effective means available to reduce the infringing capabilities of the Morpheus System and Software, while preserving its noninfringing uses as feasible".
In Elektra v. Santangelo II, in response to Bobby and Michelle Santangelo's lawyer's accusation of having made a misstatement to Magistrate Fox when they said Judge Brieant had arrived at his conclusion in Lava v. Amurao without any analysis, the RIAA's attorneys have written a letter taking the position that Judge Brieant's remarks on the record as to the reasons for his decision did not qualify as "analysis".
In another development, Magistrate Fox issued an order setting the procedures for determination of discovery disputes.
In Elektra v. Santangelo II, the defendants' lawyer has written to the Magistrate Judge claiming that the RIAA lawyer made a misstatement to the Court.
You may recall that someone identifying himself as Matthew Oppenheim called during the Capitol v. Thomas trial and complained that he had been incorrectly identified by Ars Technica as being associated with the RIAA.
According to court records he is an attorney representing the RIAA as a sole practitioner in a District of Columbia case, Arista v. Does 1-19.
Arista v. Does 1-19 is a case in which Mr. Oppenheim obtained, on behalf of the RIAA, an ex parte discovery order pertaining to students at George Washington University.
In Atlantic v. Njuguna, in Charleston, South Carolina, the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, both for failure to state a claim for relief, and on constitutional grounds based on the RIAA's pursuit of excessive damages.
The battle over the defendant's counterclaims continues to rage in South Carolina in Atlantic v. Njuguna, where the RIAA moved to dismiss Ms. Njuguna's counterclaims, Ms. Njuguna opposed, Ms. Njuguna submitted supplemental authorities in opposition, and the RIAA filed reply papers.
