Friday, March 06, 2009

New contested case in Wichita, Kansas, Elektra Entertainment Group v. Maphet

We have recently learned of a new contested case, filed in December, 2008, in Wichita, Kansas, Elektra Entertainment Group v. Maphet.

Defendant is represented by Jeff Griffith, of Griffith and Griffith, in Derby, Kansas.


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


Eric said...

"14. Users of P2P networks who distribute files over a network can be identified by using Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses because the unique IP address of the computer offering the files for distribution can be captured by another user during a search or a file transfer. Users of P2P networks can be identified by their IP addresses because each computer or network device (such as a router) that connects to a P2P network must have a unique IP address within the Internet to deliver files from one computer or network device to another[1]. Two computers cannot effectively function if they are connected to the Internet with the same IP address at the same time.[2]"

1) Factually FALSE. Each P2P user must use a distinct IP and Port combination to connect to the service and it need not even be accurate ( see P2P leech ). This allows the services to be used by multiple unique users behind a standard home firewall. In theory the end computer can be identified, but only with assistance from the operator of the firewall at the time the connection is made.

2) Factually FALSE as well. Firewalls have been an effective tool for IP sharing for over a decade and are probably the most common way for an end user to connect to the internet.

But hey, when has facts and logic stood in their way.

Randy said...

Two interesting points about the complaint.

1. It doesn't mention MediaSentry. It states in paragraph 15 "Plaintiffs identified an individual using LimeWire".

2. The date on Exhibit A is March 1, 2007. That's over *two* years ago. What if the defendant sold or disposed of the computer since then? Wouldn't it be impossible to prove any of this then? I guess we should just trust them.

Likewise, IANAL,

Another Kevin said...

If the defendant sold or disposed of the computer, ten clearly he should be sanctioned for spoliation of evidence. The RIAA has used that accusation before - asking for sanctions against a defendant who had disposed of a computer before being served with the complaint. Apparently in RIAA-land (and in the eyes of many courts) we all have to hold onto our dead computers forever, against the possibility of being served with a subpoena for their contents.

Eric said...

Another Kevin,

Since the RIAA had in their possession the information nearly 2 years ago any "spoliation" would be a direct result of failing to file for a remedy soon enough. Not that it will stop them from claiming spoilage and demanding a default judgment ( that seems to have worked in the past ).

I wonder what would happen if a defendant turned over their firewall in discovery... that WAS the computer using that IP address at the time media sentry scanned them.