Monday, January 08, 2007

New Contested Case in South Carolina, SONY v. DeMaria

There is a new contested case in South Carolina, SONY v. DeMaria. A copy of Ms. DeMaria's answer is as follows:

Answer in SONY v. DeMaria*

Ms. DeMaria is represented by Jason Scott Luck, of Charleston, South Carolina.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Digital Music Weblog

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


Alter_Fritz said...

technical question:
What (if any) is the difference in having "Answer and Counterclaim" or having like in this case just "Answer" even though it contains the pray "a) That the Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice [...]
b) that the Defendant be awarded costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to appropriate statutory and case law [...]
In case of Counterclaim we know that RIAA argues that this isn't necessary as they claim that they are such well behaving plaintiffs that stick to the cases till there is an actual trial and a verdict that deals with costs.
So what could be the impact of such an "Answerpray" without titleing it counterclaim or is it just a formality if it is named one way or the other?

AMD FanBoi said...

Be nice to see this one followed by an immediate claim for summary judgment, since plaintiffs likely have no more evidence than in any of their other suits at this point.

The curious point here, given that the original complaint is not yet posted, is that it is apparently against a Limewire user, rather than a Kazaa user. If this is another Media Sentry type operation, then I wonder what their methods are regarding this different P2P system.

What they touch on here, but don't seem to pursue is how the original JD suit was filed in a court of a far off jurisdiction, and how that court was able to order handing over of your personal information although you do not reside, nor do business, in that district. Why isn't that challenged at the original filing before the ISP hands over the information? That this court has no ability to hand over personal information for residents in other parts of the country?

If you ask how could they do this since the court doesn't know the address of the person until after it's revealed, it shouldn't be hard. All revealed personal information is provided to the court, who only passes on that for residents over which they have direct jurisdiction. I have yet to hear of this challenge attempted at the JD level.

CodeWarrior said...

My favorite part...
"30. Plaintiffs’ unfair actions in this matter, violative of public policy, federal antitrust law,
the federal RICO Act, and other laws, have prejudiced the Defendant, and therefore the
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands."