Recording Industry vs. The People

Saturday, May 17, 2008

RIAA Case Watch List : updated

For those of you who have or want to open PACER accounts, and want to help out in the fight against the RIAA's litigation campaign, here is a watch list of cases which I'd appreciate your monitoring whenever you can.

This is not an all-inclusive list of cases we are watching, but just a select list of cases that need extra watching for various reasons.

If anything happens in one of these cases, please email me the *pdf's. This will be a recurring post, in which cases will be added to and subtracted from the list, so bookmark the permalink near the bottom of this post.

The PACER login page is here. To sign up for PACER go here.

Instructions: Log in. Go to district court, then input case number. Request "docket report". If there is new activity, download *pdf file and email to me. (If you're not sure if it's important enough, email me and ask.) Thanks. -R.B.

RIAA Case Watchlist

District, Case no., Case name
Arizona: 06-2076 Atlantic v Howell
Arizona: 08-335 LaFace v Does 1-14
California:Central District: 07-2434 SONY BMG v. Williams
Connecticut: 07-232 Atlantic v. Brennan
District of Columbia: 07-1649 Arista v. Does 1-19
Michigan:Western: 07-187 LaFace v. Does 1-5
Minnesota: 06-1497 Capitol v. Thomas
Oregon: 07-6197 Arista v Does 1-17
Pennsylvania:Western District: 07-1515 Fonovisa v. Does 1-9
Rhode Island: 08-66 Arista v. Does 1-22
Virginia:Eastern District: 07-52 Interscope v Does 1-7
West Virginia:Southern District: 07-649 Arista v Does 1-7

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net

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

Permalink
posted by Ray Beckerman @ 5/17/2008 01:13:00 PM

Comments
A word from Recording Industry vs. The People, to newcomers about to submit a comment.
1. Thank you for visiting our site.
2. The RIAA has a habit of citing our blog to judges, so please keep comments dignified and worthy of the important issues we are discussing, in keeping with our comment policies.
3. If you see a violation of our comment policies, please let me know by comment or by email.
4. You can post anonymously, but please sign off by giving us something to call you. Conversations among several people called "Anonymous" get too confusing.
Thanks.
Best regards.
-Ray

Ray -
Should SONY BMG v. Williams be UMG v. Williams?

Link to this comment posted by

Cranky Guy in Ojai : March 6, 2008 5:58:00 PM EST

Stephen, this is not a complete list of all cases... just cases for which I do not have regular sources of information.

Link to this comment posted by

Ray Beckerman : April 21, 2008 9:49:00 AM EDT

Thank you for your great website that is wise enough to make it simple by having a long page! EASY, simple, people will read it more. You get an A in presentation. Clicks and lots of pages are annoying!
If these pages get too long, having a text download of all in one page would be nice.

Link to this comment posted by

Anonymous : May 10, 2008 12:24:00 PM EDT

@anonymous

Me isn't 100% sure if your comment was meant sarcasticly or not!

But if it was, then don't blame Ray, that so much happened in just over 1 month posting span that fills this one mothly overview page.
Blame the deciders and the lawyer vultures from those "well known and respected record companies" that so much reportworthy happend in such a short timeframe instead of that they simple go bankrupt and leave artists and their Fans alone!

Link to this comment posted by

Alter_Fritz : May 10, 2008 3:01:00 PM EDT

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Link to this comment posted by

Alter_Fritz : May 10, 2008 3:04:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]

"In National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates Int’l, Inc., the Eighth Circuit stated that “‘[i]nfringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.’ 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 8.11[A], at 8‐124.1.” 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993)..... Neither party presented this Eighth Circuit case to the Court." (Emphasis supplied)
-Hon. Michael J. Davis
District Judge
District of Minnesota
May 15, 2008
Capitol v. Thomas

***************
To inquire about advertising here,
contact mesita@nyc.rr.com.
***************

RECENT POSTS:

RIAA Case Watch List : updated

"Merely making a copy available does not constitute distribution....The statute provides copyright holders with the exclusive right to distribute "copies" of their works to the public "by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. ...106(3). Unless a copy of the work changes hands in one of the designated ways, a "distribution" under ...106(3) has not taken place."
-Hon. Neil V. Wake
District Judge
District of Arizona
April 29, 2008
Atlantic v. Howell
2008 ILRWeb (P&F) 1665

"An offer to distribute does not constitute distribution"
-Hon. Neil V. Wake
District Judge
District of Arizona
April 29, 2008
Atlantic v. Howell
2008 ILRWeb (P&F) 1665

"If the owner of the shared folder simply provides a member of the public with access to the work and the means to make an unauthorized copy, the owner is not liable as a primary infringer of the distribution right, but rather is potentially liable as a secondary infringer of the reproduction right....Furthermore, if contributory liability applies, the recording companies must still prove that a third-party actually obtained an unauthorized copy of the work to impose liability on [defendant]."
-Hon. Neil V. Wake
District Judge
District of Arizona
April 29, 2008
Atlantic v. Howell
2008 ILRWeb (P&F) 1665

"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
District Judge
Central District of California
March 2, 2007
Elektra v. O'Brien
2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555

"“[W]ithout actual distribution of copies.... there is no violation [of] the distribution right.” 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:9 (2007); see also id. N. 10 (collecting cases); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1162 (9th Cir. 2007)(affirming the district court’s finding “that distribution requires an ‘actual dissemination’ of a copy”)".
-Hon. Janet Bond Arterton
District Judge
District of Connecticut
February 13, 2008
Atlantic v. Brennan
534 F. Supp.2d 278

"Plaintiff ... must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement....However, .... Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation."
-Hon. Rudi M. Brewster
Senior District Judge
Southern District of California
August 17, 2007
Interscope v. Rodriguez
2007 WL 2408484

"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. "
-Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk
Magistrate Judge
District of Maine
January 25, 2008
Arista v. Does 1-27
2008 WL 222283

"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. "
-Hon. Donald C. Ashmanskas
Magistrate Judge
District of Oregon
September 21, 2007
Atlantic v. Andersen
2008 WL 185806

"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
-Hon. Lee Yeakel
District Judges
Western District of Texas
November 17, 2004
Fonovisa v. Does 1-41
2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053

"[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

"[N]either Florida’s litigation privilege nor the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine serves as a shield for sham litigation."
-Hon. Richard A. Lazzara
District Judge
Middle District of Florida
September 19, 2007
UMG v. Del Cid
2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2721

"[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

"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

"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

"[T]he inducement rule.... is a sensible one for copyright. We adopt it here, holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.....One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement...."
-Hon. David H. Souter, for the Court
Justice
U.S. Supreme Court
June 27, 2005
MGM v. Grokster
545 U.S. 913

"[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 District of New York
November 9, 2006
UMG v. Lindor
2006 WL 3335048

"[D]istributing unlawful copies of a copyrighted work does violate the copyright owner's distribution right and, as a result, constitutes copyright infringement. In order to establish "distribution" of a copyrighted work, a party must show that an unlawful copy was disseminated "to the public." 17 U.S.C. § 106(3); see National Car Rental v. Computer Associates , 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993); 2 Nimmer, § 8.11[A] at 8-137."
-Hon. John D. Butzner, Jr.
Fourth Circuit
June 30, 1997
Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
118 F.3d 199

"[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
Western District of North Carolina
February 27, 2008
LaFace v. Does 1-38
2008 WL 544992

*Printable list of above quotations

"Recording Industry vs. The People"
By Ray Beckerman

Morlan Ty Rogers -We are lawyers in New York City, practicing at Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP. We established this site to collect and share information about the wave of sham "copyright infringement" lawsuits brought by four large record companies to abuse the American judicial system, distort copyright law, and frighten ordinary working people and their children.
-Ray Beckerman
-Morlan Ty Rogers
www.vanfeliu.com
(Attorney Advertising)

Practice tips
Open Letter to Colleges, Universities
Suggestions to College Students
EFF Q&A For Students & Colleges
Non-RIAA Music
Quotes from Decisions