Recording Industry vs The People

Thursday, February 18, 2010

RIAA withdraws sanctions motion against Prof. Nesson

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has withdrawn its sanctions motion against Professor Nesson.

Notice of withdrawal of motion

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

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Despite beating UMG in the frivolous case it brought, Veoh has to close its doors

The litigious UMG Recordings has succeeded in shutting the doors of a competitor by bringing a frivolous lawsuit against Veoh, and losing. But apparently the drain of the lawsuit caused the startup to fail:

Veoh Closing Down, UMG Lawsuit Blamed (Billboard.biz)

Sad.

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net

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

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

RIAA opts for new trial in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has opted to request a new trial.

Notice of election for new trial

[Ed. note. Not satisfied with a judgment for 6500 times their actual damages, the RIAA has opted to spend additional time and attorneys fees on a trial that cannot result in a higher amount than that, and may well result in a lower amount. Hopefully Judge Davis will reach the constitutional issue next time around, and limit the plaintiffs to the constitutional limit, would be around $1.40 per infringed work. -R.B.]-

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net
Slashdot

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

Monday, February 08, 2010

RIAA opposes Tenenbaum's motion for remittitur

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has filed its opposition papers.

RIAA's memorandum in opposition

[Ed. note. As is their habit, and as their friends at the Department of Justice did as well, the RIAA's lawyers have ignored (a) all but one of the leading cases, (b) all of the leading law review articles and other scholarship, and (c) the actual contents of the Supreme Court's decisions. Fortunately these are contained in the amicus curiae brief we filed last year on behalf of the Free Software Foundation. -R.B.

Commentary & discussion:

Oral argument rescheduled in SONY v Tenenbaum to Feb 23rd at 3:15 pm

The oral argument of all of the pending motions in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum has been adjourned to February 23rd, at 3:15 PM:

Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered GRANTING [35] JOINT Motion to Continue Mtn Hearing....motion hearing reset from 2/16/10 to 2/23/10 at 3:15pm in ctrm #2, 3rd floor. Hearing will be held on MOTION for New Trial or Remittitur (Civ. Act. No. 07-cv-11446, document #26), and all pending motions. (Molloy, Maryellen)

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

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

UMG v Lindor dismissed without prejudice. No sanctions, no attorneys fees.

In UMG Recordings v. Lindor, the District Judge has adopted the report and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, which
-denied the RIAA's motion for discovery sanctions; and
-granted the RIAA's motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, without costs or attorneys fees.
Although the Court did not expressly refer to the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions, it closed the case, and it is inferable from the decision that the motion was intended to be denied.

Memorandum and Order Dismissing Case, Denying Sanctions Motion

[Ed. note I can't really comment fully on the decision just yet, since the case is not yet final, but the Judge's decision is glaringly erroneous as a matter of law, and would be reversed on an appeal. If you read my Declaration in Opposition to the RIAA's motion carefully, Judge Trager's error will leap out at you. -R.B.]

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

Sad news: p2pnet.net shutting down, or going on hiatus

I just learned that the excellent site, p2pnet.net, published by outstanding writer, digital music expert, and human being Jon Newton, is shutting down for lack of funds:

"p2pnet – last post"

Jon has been a great friend to "Recording Industry vs. The People" and to the victims of the RIAA's mean spirited litigation campaign. And he is a great friend to me.

I hope donations flow in, and/or he finds another way to continue his important work.

Thankfully, the financial entry barriers to publishing aren't what they used to be, thanks to the internet, so it probably wouldn't take too much to get back p2pnet.net back up on its feet.

Thank you, Jon. Good luck with everything. Hope to see p2pnet.net back soon.

Your friend,

Ray

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

Monday, February 01, 2010

Oral argument scheduled in SONY v Tenenbaum, February 16th, 9:30 A.M.

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Judge has scheduled oral argument of all of the outstanding motions for February 16th, at 9:30 AM.

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing on [26] MOTION for New Trial or Remittitur (Civ. Act. No. 07-cv-11446, document #26), and all pending motions, including, Plaintiffs' Motion for Costs and Fees Under Rule 37(a)(5) (Civ. Act. No. 03-cv-11661, document #851); Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Cease Unauthorized Recording Activities, to Cease Publication of Discovery Materials and for Sanctions (Civ. Act. No. 03-cv-11661, document #865). Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before Judge Nancy Gertner.(Molloy, Maryellen)

Friday, January 29, 2010

Reported that RIAA will ask for a 3rd trial in Capitol Records v Thomas

According to news reports, the RIAA has announced that it will elect not to accept a judgment for $54,000, but to instead go for a new trial, limited to the issue of the appropriate amount of statutory damages.

I checked the court's docket on PACER and found no confirmation of this.

[Ed. note. In my opinion, the Court erred in (a) failing to decide the constitutional question, and decide that even the minimum statutory damages of $750 would be unconstitutionally excessive under the due process clause as against actual damages of 35 cents, and (b) permitting a new trial at all. Even if the Court could find a permissible rationale for declining to decide the constitutional question, which it can't, there is still no way under existing copyright law any award of more than $750 could be legally sustainable. So even under that scenario the judge should be directing judgment for $18,000, not setting himself up for another circus. -R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.nte
Slashdot
p2pnet.net

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

Thursday, January 28, 2010

RIAA asks for extensions of time in Tenenbaum & in Thomas-Rasset cases

The RIAA's lawyers have asked for extensions of time in both Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

In Tenenbaum they've twice asked for extensions of time in which to respond to Tenenbaum's remittitur motion, and in Thomas-Rasset they've asked for an extension of time in which to decide whether to accept or to challenge the reduced $54,000 verdict.

SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum second RIAA request for extension of time to answer remittitur motion
Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset RIAA request for extension of time in which to make up its mind about accepting or challenging reduced verdict

[Ed. note. What's the problem? Not enough lawyers? - R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

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