Friday, November 16, 2007

Case Western Reserve students serve reply papers in support of motion to vacate in Arista v. Does 1-11 (Cleveland)

In Arista v. Does 1-11 (Cleveland), the case against Case Western Reserve University students, the "John Doe" students have filed their reply papers responding to the RIAA's opposition papers, in further support of the students' motion to quash.

Reply Papers in Support of Motion to Vacate and Quash*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online 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


Alter_Fritz said...

"Section 106(1), reproduction, requires more than an allegation of “downloading.” It is presumed Plaintiffs use of the term “downloading” means the receipt by the particular defendant of the alleged copyrighted work onto their computer via the Internet. Downloading a copyrighted work is not a violation of the copyright act. In fact, plaintiffs market their copyrighted works on various online music services that require downloading for purchase.
Downloading a copyrighted work without payment is not necessarily a violation of the copyright act. Plaintiffs regularly join with online music retailers in offering gift cards and free song downloads as inducements and the like

I like very logic reasonings like those :-)

Anonymous said...

I wonder about the burden placed on a student trying to find a job after college with this on their record, whether it was valid, or not. Especially given the RIAA perchance to drop cases without resolution when they're well fought. Given how the RIAA just doesn't like to quit, how likely are they to use this information to harass anyone identified (remember the number of sequential suits filed in some cases) for years or decades to come?

I also repeat what has been mentioned before that the RIAA certainly has information not disclosed in these initial suits. Things like KaZaA screen names, packet logs, actual downloaded files, and other materials. This material could either strengthen – or, conversely, significantly weaken – their case if they're forced to reveal it at this initial state. A screen name that matches one resident of a room, but not the other, could serve to inculpate, or exculpate, potential defendants at the very beginning of the process. Once should do their best to force the RIAA to reveal their entire hand at the beginning to determine if there is a valid case before piercing someone's privacy.

I really wonder, given the statement: FERPA places “a heavy burden on a party seeking access to student records to demonstrate a genuine need which outweighs the student's privacy interest.” if less than $100 of demonstratable Actual Damages can demonstrate such a genuine need.

I absolutely love the statement:

Plaintiff’s relied upon Bell Atlantic in identical RIAA litigation (UMG v. Lindor 05 CV 1095 Eastern District of New York) in support of the RIAA's motion to dismiss Lindor's 4th affirmative defense. (Exhibit 3 at p. 3). Plaintiffs concede the case decision means what it says.

Wouldn't it now be estoppel for the RIAA to argue that Twomby only applies when they say it applies?

Also, for starters, Plaintiffs should be required to prove that they actually own the copyrights before being allowed to seek identities.

And if not yet showing actual downloading or uploading, Plaintiffs should be called out to show just how they will be able to prove either such activity at trial. If this were to happen, they might well have to admit that neither such activity is actually provable, except as it applies to their designated agents – which does not constitute illegal activity.

From further down in the document:

The word tenuous was built for such an allegation.


The proper use of a copyright lawsuit is to resolve a legal dispute and perhaps enjoin further violations if any are found. The purpose is not to supply news stories for a marketing campaign designed to intimidate the public from violating copyrights. This is precisely the purpose of this litigation and the misjoinder of so many obviously disconnected defendants.

That has been said on this site for a long time, and should be considered a misuse of the court system rising to the level of severe punishment of the Plaintiffs in order to make them stop.

Anonymous said...

Especially on point was the part near the conclusion, where the defendants point out that the RIAA does not consider IP's to identify a person. The "anonymous" automatic settlement website (The "Extortatron 3000"?) requires that people enter a Case ID number. You cannot use the system by just logging in from the allegedly infringing IP or typing it manually. That fact should, in any rational world, automatically mean "Case Dismissed."