Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Motion to Vacate Denied in Oklahoma State University case, Arista v. Does 1-11

In Arista v. Does 1-11, the case targeting Oklahoma State University students, the judge has denied the defendants' motion and has refused to vacate his ex parte discovery order.

November 14, 2007, Order Denying Motion to Vacate and to 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


Anonymous said...

The Court initially questions how parties who have not even been served can move to dismiss the Complaint.

That is the most astonishing statement I can even imagine from a judge who is supposed to be understanding what is truly at work, and at stake, here. Anything more that I would say about these circumstances Ray would be unable to post.

I do have to ask though, is this judge up to date on the current Supreme Court rulings that would directly impact this case?

I can only hope that the University would put up a fight ala Oregon University has about the unacceptable burden this discovery request puts on them. And in fact, if I was misidentified as a defendant by Oklahoma State University and someone else had done the actual filesharing, I would sue OSU's pants off afterwards for what they put me through with their shoddy and incomplete "investigation"!

Anonymous said...

I'm also curious about that statement. How much of of the fact that the defendants haven't even been 'served' was a factor with this denial? At first I thought it was just a 'curious' question but then later on it says

"Certainly, the Doe Defendants who have not even been served in this case do not have standing to require Plaintiffs to prove the merits of their claims before Plaintiffs obtain discovery including the identity of the Doe Defendants."

At first I thought the reason they did not have standing was due to th e reasons given directly before this, but then why would they bother repeating and emphasizing the fact that they have not been served yet? Is this just normal procedure or does it actually mean this played a role in the denial? Because if it did wouldn't this judge be implying that all of RIAA's ex parte discovery is good to go? or am I confused somewhere?