Recording Industry vs The People: Approximately 62 new cases filed by RIAA in April

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.; May 10, 2009 at 3:29:00 PM EDT
raybeckerman said...: Rejected comment which was misleading. All of the cases are handled by the RIAA.; May 10, 2009 at 7:19:00 PM EDT
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; May 10, 2009 at 10:26:00 PM EDT
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; May 10, 2009 at 10:28:00 PM EDT
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; May 11, 2009 at 9:00:00 AM EDT
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; May 11, 2009 at 9:09:00 AM EDT
usagemayvary 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.; May 11, 2009 at 10:33:00 AM EDT
Dante said...: Sure. They discontinued initiating lawsuits. Then, later, they resumed.; May 11, 2009 at 12:49:00 PM EDT
raybeckerman said...: You log in to PACER
go to "civil"
"illinois"
"northern"
put in 08-5315
ask for docket report
click on complaint; May 11, 2009 at 12:50:00 PM EDT
usagemayvary 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?; May 12, 2009 at 4:53:00 PM EDT
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

;-); May 12, 2009 at 10:17:00 PM EDT
usagemayvary 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?; May 13, 2009 at 12:54:00 PM EDT

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