Sunday, May 10, 2009

Approximately 62 new cases filed by RIAA in April

Based upon a quick examination of the records in PACER, I detected 62 new cases brought by the RIAA against individuals in the month of April alone.

In December, 2008, they had represented to Congress that they had "discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August [2008]".

The RIAA has been justifying its lie by saying to news media that it didn't mean it had stopped filing lawsuits, it only meant that it had stopped filing its John Doe pre-action discovery lawsuits. And the media have repeated that statement, apparently without investigating its veracity, or corroborating it with the RIAA's attorneys. I decided to look at September 2008 and see what the RIAA's "John Doe" cases look like, and there appear to be a number of such cases in September alone. Here is a sampling; I'll be adding to it as I find the time (if there are volunteers out there who want to help me with this project, please email me. Thanks):

Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe 1 et al SD Iowa 3:08-cv-00115-JEG-CFB
Arista Records v Does 1-6 SD Ohio 2:08-cv-00874-JDH-NMK
Arista Records v. Does 1-8 ND Illinois 1:08-cv-05315
Capitol Records v Does 1-48 ED New York 1:08-cv-03626-DGT-RML
LAFACE RECORDS LLC et al v. DOES 1-51 D.D.C. 1:08-cv-01569-CKK
Motown Record Co v Does 1-2 ND Florida 1:08-cv-00202-SPM-AK
Zomba Recording v Does 1-45 ND Georgia 1:08-cv-02797-JOF

The above is just a sample.

Then I started looking at October.

I quickly found:

Capitol Records, LLC, et al v. Does 1-4 D Kansas 6:08-cv-01340-MLB-DWB (filed 10/31/08, two months after Mr. Bainwold told Congress he'd stopped initiating new lawsuits)

Then I ran out of time.

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
p2pnet.net
WinFuture.de (German)
Slyck
Prefix





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...

Too bad that the RIAA claim wasn't sworn testimony. Not that I would expect "our" Congress to do anything more than gently chide the RIAA, or (if they were really incensed) dish out a limp slap with a wet noodle. Pathetic.

Ray Beckerman said...

Rejected comment which was misleading. All of the cases are handled by the RIAA.

Marc W. Bourgeois said...

One cheaper method of searching these than PACER is Justia's Dockets. They can give the filing information searchable for all Federal Disctrict Courts without any fee, but you do have to sift through the non-RIAA copyright actions filed somewhat manually:

http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=&search=Search&stateorcourt=&lawsuittype=nos-820&documentfilter=allcases&cases=between&min-day=1&min-month=9&min-year=2008&max-day=1&max-month=10&max-year=2008

Marc W. Bourgeois said...

Cases for "Doe" or "Does" as the party can also be easily searched:

http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=does&search=Search&stateorcourt=&lawsuittype=nos-820&documentfilter=allcases&cases=between&min-day=1&min-month=9&min-year=2008&max-day=1&max-month=10&max-year=2008

Anonymous said...

I wrote a script to search dockets.justia.com for RIAA cases filed between September 2008 and April 2009. The names of these suggest they're RIAA filesharing cases, but I don't know for sure. The script probably missed some cases.

December 10, 2008

Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe 2
Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe 3
Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe 4
Interscope Records et al v. Doe 2
Interscope Records et al v. Doe 3
Interscope Records et al v. Doe 4
Interscope Records et al v. Doe 5
Interscope Records et al v. Doe 6

December 5, 2008

UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v Does

November 3, 2008

Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe #10
Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe #5
Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe #6
Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe #7
Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe #8
Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe #9
Arista Records LLC, et al v. Doe #4

September 19, 2008

BMG Music, et al v. Doe
SONY BMG Music Entertainment et al v. Doe
Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v. Doe
UMG Recordings, INC. et al v. Doe
Zomba Recording LLC et al v. Doe

September 18, 2008

CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC et al v. BMG MUSIC et al
INTERSCOPE RECORDS et al v. JOHN DOE
MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY LP et al v DOE
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT et al v. JOHN DOE
UMG RECORDINGS, INC. et al v. JOHN DOE
ZOMBA RECORDING LLC et al v. JOHN DOE

September 17, 2008

Arista Records LLC et al v. Doe 1 et al
Capitol Records, LLC et al v. John Doe

September 11, 2008

Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v. John Doe

September 2, 2008

Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al v. Doe

-- Code Monkey

Anonymous said...

My script is written in Python. If you know Python, get a copy from http://pastebin.com/f76770322

The following is my current list of RIAA companies. Am I missing any?

* Note: I only need the beginning of the company names. It's not a bug.
* Note: Capitalization matters.

"Capitol Records"
"CAPITOL RECORDS"
"UMG Recordings"
"UMG RECORDINGS"
"Sony BMG"
"SONY BMG"
"Elektra Entertainment"
"ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT"
"LaFace Records"
"LAFACE RECORDS"
"Arista Records"
"ARISTA RECORDS"
"Warner Bros. Records"
"WARNER BROS. RECORDS"
"Interscope Records"
"INTERSCOPE RECORDS"
"BMG Music"
"BMG MUSIC"
"Zomba Recording"
"ZOMBA RECORDING"
"Motown Record"
"MOTOWN RECORD"
"EMI CHRISTIAN MUSIC GROUP"

== CodeMonkey

Usage May Vary said...

For the Illinois one, Arista Records v. Does 1-8 ND Illinois 1:08-cv-05315 where can I view more information? I can't even find the complaint online...should I be searching for 1:08-cv-05315? or something?

I have nothing to fear but if necessary I'd go to the courthouse and document these if I can find out hearing dates, etc.

Dante said...

Sure. They discontinued initiating lawsuits. Then, later, they resumed.

Ray Beckerman said...

You log in to PACER
go to "civil"
"illinois"
"northern"
put in 08-5315
ask for docket report
click on complaint

Usage May Vary said...

ugh. I have to pay just view an online pacer doc? What the heck is that? I thought people were trying to free up the information, etc?

Alter_Fritz said...

UMV asked:
What the heck is that?

May I politely direct you to my comment on charles' blog for an answer?

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/05/07/is-this-disrespect/#comment-7616

;-)

Usage May Vary said...

well, not what I meant fritz.

I meant I thought there were efforts being made to make PACER free and I seem to recall someone saying that was the idea?