tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post7927632738846955409..comments2024-02-29T03:26:17.906-05:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: First 2 complaints against Sara Weiner now available online, Warner Bros. Records v. Weinerraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-37013351958776719642009-05-15T18:24:00.000-04:002009-05-15T18:24:00.000-04:00"Discovery action?" DMCA 512(h), which authorized..."Discovery action?" DMCA 512(h), which authorized pre-litigation subpoenas to identify alleged infringers, was struck down as unconstitutional years ago (<A HREF="http://www.eff.org/cases/riaa-v-verizon-case-archive" REL="nofollow">RIAA v. Verizon (2003)</A>). So a federal lawsuit is a federal lawsuit, no matter how much a plaintiff still wishes it were an extrajudicial DMCA 512(h) subpoena request.<br /><br />If anyone should be offended by a plaintiff who regards the court as a cut-rate 512(h) subpoena mill while also wielding the court as an oppose-everything-then-dismiss-at-the-last-minute cost bludgeon against defendants who don't settle, it should be the judges. The courts exist to make whole deserving parties, not to enrich parties that game the system.Matt Fitzpatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198028211898155926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-59212711591965374762009-05-15T17:08:00.000-04:002009-05-15T17:08:00.000-04:00@anonymous
so I guess you already faxed a notice a...@anonymous<br />so I guess you already faxed a notice about this post here on RIvTP to STEVEN R WEINER,ESQUIRE FAX NO: 4137322946 from where Sara Weiner had her court papers faxed in the second action?<br /><br />I tried but my german mailprovider's "email to fax service" seems to work unfortunately only on national numbers, not on international Numbers. :-(Alter_Fritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861406779872744163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-24197993344207256862009-05-15T15:53:00.000-04:002009-05-15T15:53:00.000-04:00I can't wait to see this play out here in my nativ...I can't wait to see this play out here in my native Virginia. Our courts are notorious for not tolerating shenanigans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-55643189840186979992009-05-15T13:23:00.000-04:002009-05-15T13:23:00.000-04:00[..]we know they would never do that.[i.e. lying t...<I>[..]we know they would never do that.</I>[i.e. lying to a court of law]<I>-R.B.</I><BR><BR>You must be new here!<br /><br />--<br />A_F<br /><br />*SCNR*Alter_Fritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861406779872744163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-73292863932085331302009-05-15T12:11:00.000-04:002009-05-15T12:11:00.000-04:00xyzzy -
I'm not sure they would even make the att...xyzzy -<br /><br />I'm not sure they would even make the attempt.<br /><br />My read of it is, if they ever did argue that named defendant Weiner was <I>not</I> doe #x, then (and Ray, please correct me if I'm wrong on this point) whatever strength their evidence might have had in first place, because a mis-identification should (at least in my non-professional opinion) serve to impeach their case <I>in toto</I> because they've <B>got the wrong defendant</B>.<br /><br />-Quiet LurkerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-4724697861295417192009-05-15T11:29:00.000-04:002009-05-15T11:29:00.000-04:00Perhaps I should have examined the documents close...Perhaps I should have examined the documents closer before posting. <br /><br />Doe is never identified by "doe" in the second complaint, but there is a link created by identifying Does by IP address. <br /><br />-BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-364159365333206472009-05-15T10:42:00.000-04:002009-05-15T10:42:00.000-04:00B:
In #2, there is no mention of "Doe #X". The p...B:<br /><br />In #2, there is no mention of "Doe #X". The plaintiffs make use of passive voice ("was identified") to avoid the issue.<br /><br />I'm interested to see if plaintiffs will ever be in a position where they have to argue that Weiner is not Doe. In this case, as in Kimmel, we can't help but wonder, "If Defendant isn't Doe, who the heck is?"<br /><br />XYZZYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-76203539410225324612009-05-15T09:59:00.000-04:002009-05-15T09:59:00.000-04:00A student would likely fail civ pro if he/she tho...A student would likely fail civ pro if he/she thought the pleading and discovery stage were synonymous. While they are related, a complaint is NOT a discovery action. What a joke!<br /><br />The Doe dismissal is a very interesting issue though. Aren't defendants typically referenced at some point as Doe #X in the following action? If so, I'd say it is clearly a second dismissal - adjudication on the merits.<br /><br />-BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com