Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Default Judgment Vacated in Illinois case, Warner v. DeWitt

In Warner v. DeWitt, a case in Illinois, the Court has vacated a default judgment entered against the defendant, despite the RIAA's strenuous opposition:

February 28, 2007, Order Vacating Default Judgment*

Copies of Ms. DeWitt's motion, and the RIAA's opposition, are as follows:

Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate Default*
RIAA's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Vacate Default*
Defendant's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate Default*

Ms. DeWitt is represented by Matthew Miller and Cassandra Crane of Miller & Sweeney in Chicago.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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


Scott Ferguson said...

Matthew Miller has an impressive CV. This should be an interesting case to watch.

Does it seem to you that the court challenges to recording industry's misguided legal campaign are starting to snowball? I for one would love to see what Holme Roberts & Owen is billing back to the record labels every month.

In my opinion, Edgar Bronfman Jr. (among others) must be dumb as a post for bankrolling these lawsuits.

Alter_Fritz said...

so the counsel for RIAA isn't interested in this case that fair justice will be done or why are they against a trial where the defendant has a competent lawyer to assist her now?
Me wonders how come then that their new "we do it without courts; another way" website claims that cases that involve wireless networks and unsecured IP adresses will be "routinely pursued"? *
Wouldn't it be also in the interest of the copyrightholders and their lawyers like Mr. Gabriel from HRO that there are clear lines to be drawn with respect to responsibility for alleged copyright infringements?
I mean, Mr. Gabriel and his collegues are already getting all the mail from the new page registered in the name of RIAA according to public records that show that they are the owners of the "email us" domain.**


Holme Roberts & Owen LLP

Registered through:, Inc. (

Scott Ferguson said...

One question I'm wondering about:

Let's say the RIAA subpoenas information about subscribers from Cable Operator, who, because of what the RIAA is and has been doing, is reasonably certain how this information will be used.

Cable Operator then provides the specific information requested in the subpoena with the knowledge that it isn't, in and of itself, sufficient to positively identify which subscriber is doing what with an internet connection at a specific time; and further makes no effort to inform the Court or the RIAA of this fact.

In this hypothetical situation, has Cable Operator libeled the subscriber?

I think cable operators ought to be proactive in telling the courts that the log information they collect is sufficient for their business purposes (billing and access control), but is not adequate for what the RIAA intends to do with it. If they don't, then the subscriber who is wrongfully fingered by the cable operator should be entitled to some damages.

The United States is already sliding down the slippery slope of forcing businesses to collect way too much information about customers. Anyone involved in business ends up becoming a de facto investigator for government agencies (or litigants with delusions of grandeur, as with the recording industry). Sarbanes-Oxley is a manifestation of this larger trend to require over-collection of information. Such legislation is well intended, but with the kind of intentions that the road to hell was paved with.

raybeckerman said...

Yes the RIAA's legal campaign is misguided. And yes they could care less about "fair justice". These are classic bullies. A fair fight is the last thing they are looking for.