In LaFace v. Does 1-5, the case targeting 5 Northern Michigan University students, the judge has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and quash the subpoena.
February 22, 2008, order denying motion to dismiss and to quash*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property
3 comments:
but maybe a tally sheet counting judges with a clue about the law at issue vs those without would be more useful though?
clue | No clue
+0 | +1
This judge here did not even seemed to understand the basics with respect to "IP addresses - Computers - Individuals" sufficently to rule about the same if I read his order correctly.
If I understand the ruling, it basically comes down to the fact that most (not all) of the claims by the defendant to quash are better handled at the judgment phase, post discovery.
The defendant has the burden of establishing that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
And here all along I thought the Judge – that guy or gal in the black robes who understands the law – would determine if a challenged suit sufficiently stated any plausible claim. This judge puts it all onto the defendant to do his job.
This judge seems incapable of understanding that by allowing the plaintiffs to precede with this completely flawed complaint that he is not serving justice at all. He is only opening up direct extortion on a number of poor college students where there is no possibility of proving they were ever guilty to start with. The RIAA has no interest in prevailing in a fair fight court case, and this judge just handed them permission to pummel even more victims.
This judge is a disgrace to justice. I would impeach him, if I could.
-DM
Post a Comment