Thursday, March 05, 2009

All counterclaims, except for declaratory judgment counterclaim, dismissed in Capitol Records v.

In Capitol Records v., in Manhattan, the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counterclaims was granted as to all of the monetary claims, but denied as to the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment.

Decision dismissing counterclaims, except counterclaim for declaratory judgment

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


Anonymous said...

Allowing the counterclaim to remain ensures that the dispute will be resolved, even if Plaintiffs decide not to pursue their claims.

This should be the minimum standard for every case brought by the RIAA and its associates.

{The Common Man Speaking}

derivative said...

Admittedly, I haven't been following this case too closely, but the judge's reasoning that a take-down notice is not directed at a consumer seems incredibly unenlightened and literal-minded to me. The takedown notice may be ADDRESSED to the defendant, but if the defendant acts on it, he will upset a consumer, and if he doesn't, he will (obviously) incur the legal wrath of the plaintiff.

Alter_Fritz said...

I agree with TCMS that it is good that this judge has seen how important it is that counterclaims can stay alive to prevent plaintiffs from "towel throwing" and leaving a defendant in judicial limbo.

What I have a problem in understandin with though is his reasoning regarding the way EMI handled the DMCA takedown thingy and that it was not a "material misrepresentation" as your law defines it;

I read judge Pauley's explaination in layments terms as:
"Hey, since the defendant did not do what the plaintiffs tried to force him to do with the DMCA notice that P. has send, there has "no judicial relevant lying" ("misrepresentation") took place.
Plaintiffs can say and claim the stumpiest things in the world, they will not get slapped for such behaviour as long as the guy that recieves this nonsense from a plaintiff does not do what is demanded with this nonsense."

Can such reasoning realy be true?
Can a plaintiff demand stupid unreasonable things and can he lie like he please and do so immune from liability as long as the defendant is smart enough to see that it is nonsense and does not act as demanded?

Projecting such a reasoning into another field of justice this would mean that i can try to trick someone into paying me much money under false promisses, and as long as the guy i try to trick does not get fooled, I have not done anything wrong. This does not work as far as i know. If you try to do illegal stuff, you will land before a judge at least for attempted wrongdoings.
Issuing false and wrong DMCA takedowns are free of consequences when one does not act upon them, can that really be the law you have? *me wonders*