Recording Industry vs The People: RIAA claim not to have filed new cases "for months" is false

Friday, December 19, 2008

RIAA claim not to have filed new cases "for months" is false

According to a report on Wired.com, the RIAA spokesman claims that the RIAA has not filed any new lawsuits "for months"; according to the Wall Street Journal report the RIAA stopped filing mass lawsuits "early this fall"; and the Associated Press was apparently told that the RIAA had stopped bringing new lawsuits in August.

Being very familiar with the RIAA's penchant for "misspeaking", even when under oath, I investigated the matter a bit, and learned that a large number of suits have been brought by the RIAA quite recently, one as recently as this Monday. Here are just a few. Those marked green were contributed by some of our great readers:

Atlantic Recording v. Williams 08-1710 W.D. Pennsylvania 12/15/08
Sony BMG Music v. Linus 08-14413 S.D. Florida 12/11/08
Arista Records v. Estrada 08-8135 C.D. California 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Haralambos 08-8129 C.D. California 12/10/08
SONY BMG Music v. Estrada 08-2682 D. Colorado 12/10/08
Interscope Records v. Doe 6 08-1882 D. Connecticut 12/10/08
Arista Records v. Doe 4 08-1877 D. Connecticut 12/10/08
Interscope Records v. Doe 5 08-1284 D. Connecticut 12/10/08
Interscope Records v. Doe 2 08-1878 D. Connecticut 12/10/08
Interscope Records v. Doe 3 08-1879 D. Connecticut 12/10/08
Capitol Records v. Fowler 08-2141 D. District of Columbia 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Mekawi 08-2142 D. District of Columbia 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Hensley 08-534 M.D. Florida 12/10/08
Interscope Records v. Jackson 08-544 N.D. Florida 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Blueford 08-119 M.D. Georgia 12/10/08
Warner Bros. Records v. Umbaugh 08-118 M.D. Georgia 12/10/08
SONY BMG Music v. Simms 08-3728 N.D. Georgia 12/10/08
Warner Bros. Records v. Wade 08-3727 N.D. Georgia 12/10/08
Capitol Records v. Williams-Ali 08-156 S.D. Iowa 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Decort 08-7053 N.D. Illinois 12/10/08
SONY BMG Music v. Shane 08-7055 N.D. Illinois 12/10/08
SONY BMG Music v. Byers 08-189 S.D. Indiana 12/10/08
Capitol Records v. Trusty 08-190 S.D. Indiana 12/10/08
Elektra Entertainment v. Maphet 08-1386 D. Kansas 12/10/08
Atlantic Recording v. Sanderson 08-1385 D. Kansas 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Gulledge 08-cv-00973-MHT-TFM M.D. Alabama 12/10/08
Warner Bros. Records Kelley 08-cv-02295-CLS N.D. Alabama 12/10/08
SONY BMG Music v. Van Ornum 08-cv-04205-JLH E.D. Arkansas 12/10/08
Interscope Records v. Tabor 08-cv-03068-JLH W.D. Arkansas 12/10/08
BMG Music v. O'Brien 08-cv-02244-HRH D. Arizona 12/10/08
Priority Records v. Easterling 08-cv-08131-PA-JTL C.D. California 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Ibarzabal 08-cv-08136-R-SH C.D. California 12/10/08
Interscope Records v. Doe 4 08-cv-01880-JBA D. Connecticut 12/10/08
Arista Records v. Doe 2 08-cv-01874-CFD D. Connecticut 12/10/08
Arista Records v. Doe 3 08-cv-01876-SRU D. Connecticut 12/10/08
UMG Recordings v. Burmeister 08-cv-02295-MPM-DGB C.D. Illinois 12/10/08

Here are the most recent cases I found involving multiple John Does, which were filed the week before:

Warner Bros. Records v. Does 1-4 08-cv-01425-HA D. Oregon 12/5/08
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Does 08-cv-00717-TCK-PJC N.D. Oklahoma 12/5/08
UMG Recordings v. Does 1-3 08-cv-00139-DLB E.D. Kentucky 12/4/08

The cases were filed 12/10/08 and are all from Central Michigan University. They are as follows:
Sony BMG v. Lugo 2:2008cv15102 Bay City Michigan (Central Michigan University-Mt.Pleasant Mich)
UMG v. Rivera 1:2008cv15101 Bay City Michigan (Central Michigan University-Mt.Pleasant Mich)
Sony BMG v. Mack 1:2008cv15104 Bay City Michigan (Central Michigan University-Mt.Pleasant Mich)
Capital v. Pogue 1:2008cv15104 Bay City Michigan (Central Michigan University-Mt.Pleasant Mich)
Filed on 12/5/2008, from Oakland County Michigan through the Federal Courthouse in Detroit Mi.
Psychopathic Records v. Anderson 2:2008cv15034

Commentary & discussion:

Wall Street Journal Online -- Comments Section
p2pnet.net
Slashdot
Trading Card Central
Investor Village
Fred Benenson's Blog
popmatters
ynet (Hebrew)
WinExtra
Digital Music News
pcinpact.com (French)
yahoo! france actualites (French)
TechDirt
Daily Tech
The Daily Swarm
20minutes.fr (French)
Wired.com
Intellectual Property Watch
Hard OCP
p2pnet.net (12/23/08)
tgdaily
yahoo! tech
The Moderate Voice
MySanAntonio.com
doom9

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

12 comments:

Anonymous said...: Hmm...It seems that the RIAA's idea of the truth is something you make up and say confidently...

I have to say I'm surprised at their gumption...and more surprised that I had assumed for even a second that they were telling the truth. Foolish, foolish me. It is just hard to believe that an institution under such a public mission would be so cynically contemptuous of ever making averments actually rooted in honest and fair dealing, IMO, and they seem to count on that, as if they need merely keep the quantity and speed lies going at sufficient momentum that no consequences can ever catch up to them. Quite appalling. And quite in line with their previous actions.; December 19, 2008 at 7:32:00 PM EST
Eric said...: I don't see the RIAA having filed a single case. Of course they are 100% "correct" and 100% deceptive so it's business as usual.; December 19, 2008 at 7:33:00 PM EST
Marc W. Bourgeois said...: A few newer cases than those listed (Filed as recently as this past Monday):

ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION et al v. WILLIAMS - Filed 12/15/08 - PA Western case no 2:2008cv01710

Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v. Linus - Filed 12/11/08 - FL Southern case no 2:2008cv14413

There were also a host of others than those listed above filed last Wednesday in numerous courts around the nation.

-Marc; December 19, 2008 at 7:36:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Well it was only through the most complex investigations that I was able to learn of their 'misspeaking'. I actually had to go on PACER.; December 19, 2008 at 7:46:00 PM EST
Marc W. Bourgeois said...: It appears that on 12/10 the recording companies filed 48 lawsuits against individuals, and 8 of these suits involved a "Doe" defendant.; December 19, 2008 at 7:47:00 PM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: Ray, Ray I'm a bit disapointed by you that you fall for their trick.

It is like the "shared a room" vs. "roommates" episode what the "worthless duck" spokesperson were speaking.

The RIAA (!) never ever (as far as I'm aware) has filed any lawsuit in their name
So of course they could claim without that it would be a lie that they stopped doing it.

It is Atlantic Records (just to name one) and others that are suing not this ominoese lawyer outfit "RIAA".

But maybe next time the shady "I'm not with RIAA anymore" wannebe Dentist Oppenheim, that claimed in the recent letter to that board to have the recording companies as his clients, will sue people in the name of his group instead of Sony-BMG, EMI, Universal and Warner.; December 19, 2008 at 8:32:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: Every "Pre-litigation"-extortion- settlement Letter from HRO references...
RIAA Lawsuit. But I guess if their lips are moving, there lying.; December 19, 2008 at 10:46:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: Guess the RIAA simply doesn't learn -- each time they try to lie they forget they have near the full force of the Internet, and its ability to find and disseminate information, to deal with.; December 20, 2008 at 12:33:00 AM EST
Not Telling said...: Sounds like they meant that they haven't filed any RIAA vs Does 1-1000 lawsuits in months.

But they are still filing lawsuits against individuals resulting from the Does lawsuits.; December 21, 2008 at 2:34:00 AM EST
raybeckerman said...: Multiple John Doe cases were filed on 12/4 and 12/5. Look, hundreds of cases were filed this fall; I just collected a few samples. If you want to quibble, go to PACER, look up all the cases that have been brought and give us a list. You will find hundreds and you will find a number of multiple John Doe cases. That would be more helpful than trying to justify the RIAA's lie.; December 21, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...: The RIAA lies yet again and this is news...why?

{The Common Man Speaking}; December 21, 2008 at 7:16:00 PM EST
Unknown said...: it's news because Media outlets are reporting it as not a lie.; December 22, 2008 at 9:35:00 AM EST

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