In a case of which we were previously unaware, Atlantic v. Anderson in Houston, Texas (not to be confused with the Portland, Oregon, case Atlantic v. Andersen), the RIAA has won a summary judgment motion.
Following are copies of the Court's decision, and of the defendant's opposition papers (which cited none of the applicable authorities).
March 12, 2008, Decision granting RIAA summary judgment motion*
Defendant's opposition papers*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
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
10 comments:
Ray -
The first link is to a 2006 document from the Tanya Anderson case in Oregon. Link needs fixing?
That IS NOT the March 11, 2008 Order in the Atlantic vs Anderson in the Southern District of Texas. It is an older decision from the Atlantic vs Anderson case from oregon.
Fred
Hi Ray,
The first link (the judge's order) is actually the Oregon version of "Atlantic vs Anderson", that is Tanya Anderson, not Abner Anderson of the Houston case.
Regards,
Art
Thanks for straightening me out folks. Confused Atlantic v. Anderson with Atlantic v. Andersen.
Just a few points I've picked up ...
In Paragraph II - It is a pity that, once again, no-one was in court to point out that 'The factual background of this case' contains so many factual errors.
Have I missed this before or have the RIAA added 'availing' to their lexicon of copyright abuses?
What I detect in this recent spate of posts on default judgements is an underlying cynical ploy by the RIAA to insert, unchallenged, into these court papers the fabrication of pseudo-legitimate precedents that can later be used to much greater effect in the cases that really matter. [It does not help that in this case the Defendant appears to have made enough unguarded admissions about his use of KaZaa to have made this judgement a foregone conclusion: exactly the type of case that would serve these RIAA tactics.]
If anyone has the time then all the case references cited here by he RIAA should be checked out and if necessary refuted here so that the detail is available to all. Beware that the RIAA are masters of conflation - trust not a one of their carefully constructed lines of logic.
Dave
alter_fritz, I think you were in a bad mood when you wrote that comment. I had to reject it because it was too disrespectful to the judge.
Dignified criticism of judicial decisions is, of course, fine, but keep it dignified, and back it up.
You are correct that the Judge's decision was wrong.
Although it is ultimately the Judge's responsibility, part of the blame has to go to the defendant's lawyer, who submitted very weak "opposition papers" which (a) admitted all the factual allegations by failing to include any opposition affidavit, and (b) showed no familiarity at all with any of the applicable judicial precedents.
It is a shame that the opposition to the motion for summary judgment did not argue that "making available" without actual unlicensed copies made is not a distribution under 106(3). I can't believe that this court used Harper and Row v. Nation for publication = distribution in order to get to making available in a share folder is a distribution under 106(3). I'm sure RIAA will have a field day with this opinion.
Ray said
"alter_fritz, I think you were in a bad mood when you wrote that comment. I had to reject it because it was too disrespectful to the judge."
you are right with your decision I guess.
After sleeping over it I thought myself if I should delete it it or not. I decided against deleting it because of that one footnote by the Judge which I still think is totally inappropriate for a judge.
That probably was the "bad mood" thingy.
Given the mission this blog has I'm OK with your decision, no bad feelings though!
Judge Gilmore says in her order that the defendent had admitted (s)he had placed music in a specific place on the HDD and then the judge cites prior rulings where courts ruled about actual distribution and not where something was stored
And referes to questions by plaintiffs where the answer was the admittance of violations of what your copyrightlaws grand those plaintiffs as exclusice rights, namely that "actual distribution of phonorecords to the public by x,y,z"-thingy in it!
I respectully submit that the court erred in it's interpretation of the copyrightlaw.
Other then in the Howell case I haven't seen the set of questions this time, but I guess it is reasonable to assume that plaintiffs used the same boilerplate set of questions that they used in the Howell case where the Judge first missinterpreted the question and answer too but was wise enough to reverse his granting of summery judgement after he has been informed he missunderstood that complicated stuff.
Could it be that Judge Gilmore made the same error and was confused what defendant actually admitted to and therefore wrongfully came to the conclusion that there are no issues of material facts that are in dispute while actually there are probably very well some?
Post a Comment