Thursday, November 29, 2007

2 Ohio State University Students Move to Quash in Arista v. Does 1-9 in Columbus, Ohio

In Arista v. Does 1-9, in Columbus, Ohio, an Ohio State University student has moved to quash. The student is identified as John Doe #1. He or she is represented by Dean Boland of Lakewood, Ohio.

Meanwhile, p2pnet reports that another Ohio State student, John Doe #9, has also made a motion. He is represented by Mark Kafantaris of Columbus, Ohio.

Things could get interesting in Columbus.

This is the first instance of which we are aware in which two students, represented by different lawyers, have made motions to quash in the same case.

John Doe #1 Motion 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

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Would be nice if the Plaintiff's had to properly show ownership of the recordings they're suing over before they could request expedited discovery? I don't mean the original Copyright certificate, which may name a company that's not even in business any longer, but the full chain of custody from the original filing – and a copy of the performance this filing refers to – right up to the current Plaintiffs. They're big on claiming "We own it", and very short on actually proving that ownership. Since proof of ownership is one of the two major legs of the case that the Plaintiffs must present competent evidence of, let's see that ownership.

Plaintiffs failed to identify any individual computer from which any alleged infringement of their copyrighted music occurred.


Moreover, they failed to identify whether the songs in their various exhibits were downloaded by Doe #1 from the Internet, another media source (CD, jump drive, disk, etc). They failed to allege the file(s) exist on Doe #1’s computer. They fail to show or allege that the list of songs in their exhibit actually represents audio files that were ever located on any computer, much less Doe #1’s.

This is equally damming.

The first attacks that it's even possible to identify an individual computer, let alone the individual at that computer, by using an external IP address. The moment the connection passes through a NATting router, cable modem, dsl modem, or any other piece of routing hardware, that IP address is changed to the address of the routing device. The RIAA cannot prove just what was plugged into that wall jack and talked using that IP address. And while they are demanding MAC addresses to try and tie that IP address to a specific device, routers and the like mimic any MAC address you may want to enter just so they can be interposed without needing to have another MAC address registered for them. And they can split the signal to multiple computers.

The second attacks the whole "Music files on computers can only be evidence of illegal downloading" argument that the RIAA throws out to make defendants look even more guilty (like the Exhibit B of these cases that is always there to claim that while we only downloaded and actually identified a small number of music files, he's REALLY GUILTY because of the Thousands of Other Songs that were being distributed). Even if there are music files on a computer, that is NO EVIDENCE of illegal downloading activity by anyone.

At this point in time the RIAA CAN'T:

Identify any particular computer.

Identify any particular individual operating that computer.

Identify any actual instance of illegal Downloading to any computer.

Identify any actual instance of illegal Distribution of any music files.

Identify in any way the contents of any file they didn't actually download.

Identify any actual need why only expedited discovery can provide them crucial evidence that will be irretrievably lost otherwise.

Identify any Actual Damages they have truly suffered.

Identify how any of these Doe Defendants are legally related to any of these other Doe Defendants.

When the RIAA throws up their litany of cases that have gone their way at this point in the proceedings, one needs to point out how many of those cases (all of them?) were unopposed due to the ex parte proceedings, and how that shouldn't count in the RIAA's favor.