In a case we have not covered before, Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, the corporate defendant MP3Tunes, and the individual defendant, Michael Robertson, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, saying the action belonged in California. The Court dismissed as to Mr. Robertson, but denied the motion as to MP3Tunes.
MP3Tunes operates the web sites mp3tunes.com and sideload.com
It appears that all of the plaintiffs are affiliates of EMI.
Complaint
September 29, 2008, Decision, Partly Granting, Partly Denying, Motion to Dismiss
Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player
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.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction partially granted, partially denied, in Capitol v. MP3Tunes, LLC
2 comments:
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. If you see a violation of the policies, please let me know by email. You can post anonymously, but must sign off by giving us something to call you. Conversations among several people called "Anonymous" get too confusing. Thanks. Best regards. -Ray
Ah, this wild and crazy post-Grokster world. Easier than ever for innovators to get sued for doing nothing other than innovating.
ReplyDeleteGlad at least one innovator is possibly off the hook. I'd give him a 50-50 chance EMI won't go anywhere near the 9th Circuit with this case.
Hello Ray, reading the defendants counter-claim, they show, and in an act of belief I will say it is true, that EMI and its affiliates [i]knowingly[/i] send links to songs that were not in fact in their copyright. Can this come back to hit them, if the court agrees with the Defendants?
ReplyDelete