Recording Industry vs The People: RIAA filed opposition papers in Elektra v. Doe

Monday, August 04, 2008

RIAA filed opposition papers in Elektra v. Doe

Subsequent to the Court's order in Elektra v. Doe, a Raleigh, North Carolina, "John Doe" case, indicating that the Court was going to take a "fresh look" at the RIAA tactics, the RIAA filed opposition papers defending its tactics.

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion

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

5 comments:

Lost in Thought said...: MediaSentry has neither been contacted by the Private Protective Services Board (“PPSB”) nor been charged with operating without a license by the Attorney General under the PPSA.

So getting a notice of a greivance hearing doesn't count as being 'contacted?' Notice of the hearing was sent to them on June 30th and the response was filed July 9th. Hmmmmmmm..... But I'm sure that they tripped over themselves to correct the official record, though, the RIAA lawyers being the beacons of integrity that they are...; August 4, 2008 at 1:41:00 PM EDT
Alter_Fritz said...: Quick!
Someone of the RIAA lawyers go out and file a JonDoe ex parte proceding to find out who this "cyberspace" guy is!

"Moreover, Mr. Linares’ statements are based on personal knowledge, and MediaSentry’s
observation and downloading of sound recordings from cyberspace, through a P2P network
accessible to the general public, is not an activity regulated by the North Carolina statutes."

Why again are they suing an unknown Doe if they claim to know from which guy (this time not "terreastar" but "cyberspace") they downloaded the songs?

And is it really necessary that me -the non lawyer, non american boyfriend of a pirategirl- must explain this Lacey M. Moore guy/gal (?) that in order to infringe the distribution right codified in US copyrightlaw there must have taken place a transfer of ownership by sale rental or lease of a phonorecord?
And that nothing what he/she accuse the Doe of having done satisfies this prerequsite of your copyrightlaws?!

Question: Can Lacey be slapped with Rule 11 for those obvious lies by him/her in the papers?; August 4, 2008 at 2:21:00 PM EDT
Jadeic said...: At first glance this looks like the 'same old, same old' twaddle we have come to expect.

The inclusion of reference to 'TNT Road Co. v. Sterling Truck Corp' is an interesting aside though. The RIAA seem to be arguing this as a clear precedent that the expert testimony can be accepted by the court even when the expert acted as an investigator and did so without the licence required by the state. In other words, even if it is found that MS perhaps should have been registered as an investigator (insert abject apologies), the expert evidence can still stand.

The expert in question in 'TNT Road Co. v. Sterling Truck Corp' is one Mr Adams. What the RIAA fail to draw attention to is that the reason his testimony was allowed to stand is that his credentials as an investigator (licensed or not) were made fully available to the court and it was clearly demonstrated that his methodology was thorough and conformed fully with the appropriate national standard.[TNT Road Co. v. Sterling Truck Corp - District of Maine 1:03-cv-00037-MJK Docket 89]

Contrast this with the RIAA ploy that would have us accept as expert testimony the hearsay of someone not directly involved in the investigation which itself is based on methodologies that accept not peer review and which are in effect an unexplained, sealed black box.

Another example of wanting to have the cake and eat it.

Dave; August 4, 2008 at 3:22:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: How can litigation based upon an investigation that took place month before, by an investigator posing as a common "Joe" on the internet, and based upon evidence that has been fondled, and perhaps manipulated and spoiled many times over, during the process, (who as a third party investigator, has many times previously submitted court documents claiming the invasions of perhaps millions of computer hard drives to gather evidence to be used in a court of law), while operating under the supervision of a paid trade group employee who (BTW is unlicensed to practice law in the questioned state), for the sole purpose of sustaining a lawsuit based upon a voodoo interpretation of the law, not ...(4) subjects a person to undue burden. ?; August 4, 2008 at 5:38:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: LOOKS LIKE NC STATE TURNED OVER THE NAMES TO THE RIAA.LOOKS LIKE RIAA IS ABOVE THE LAW WITH THE STAY THE NC JUDGE PUT ON THE SUBPOENA.; August 6, 2008 at 8:28:00 AM EDT

Post a Comment

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