Saturday, December 01, 2007

In Ohio State University case, Arista v. Does 1-9, Court Stays Enforcement of Ex Parte Order on Motion by John Does #5 & 9

In Arista v. Does 1-9, the Columbus, Ohio, case targeting Ohio State University, where three defendants --John Does #1, 5, and #9 -- have made motions, the Court has stayed enforcement of its ex parte order.

Also we have obtained copies of the motion papers served on behalf of John Does #5 and 9.

John Does #5 and 9 are represented by Mark G. Kafantaris of Columbus, Ohio.

John Doe #1 is represented by Dean Boland of Lakewood, Ohio.

John Doe #9 Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Vacate Order, Quash Subpoena*
John Doe #9 Motion for Stay*
John Doe #5 Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Vacate Order, Quash Subpoena*
John Doe #5 Motion for Stay*
November 29, 2007, Order Granting Stay of Subpoena*

The motion by John Doe #1 was posted previously.

* 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...

In other words, at bottom what the Plaintiffs claim is that, by the mere act of selling in the public marketplace the works produced by the artists they represent, they have automatically constituted as their trustees anyone into whose hands those works may come. Thereafter, they opine, such involuntary and unwitting -- trustees have a fiduciary duty to protect the financial interests of the Plaintiffs and those Plaintiffs’ associates.

This is truly a breakthrough statement in pointing out what the RIAA is attempting to enforce on all music purchasers. By the RIAA's logic, if I bought a CD and failed to guard it 24/7 against someone else borrowing and copying it, before returning it to me, I could be guilty of hundreds of thousands of dollars in copyright infrigenment fines. This is why the RIAA MUST NOT WIN!


Scott said...

The magistrate wrote,

"The Ohio State University should gather the documents subpoenaed now and produce them within fifteen (15) days of any decision denying the motion to quash."

It seems to me that he's telegraphing that he will probably deny the motion. Otherwise why would he be suggesting to OSU that they go to the trouble of collecting these documents?

Reluctant Raconteur said...

Doesn't the right of first sale come into play somewhere here?

There is a viable secondary market for the physical goods (CD's and Books) but not for digital.

Why are they treated differently?