Friday, January 04, 2008

San Diego Judge Disagrees with Judge Brewster, Upholds RIAA Complaint, Strikes All of Defendant's Counterclaims

In a case of which we were unaware until today, Atlantic v. Serrano, a San Diego judge has denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the RIAA complaint and granted the RIAA's motion to dismiss all of defendant's counterclaims, including counterclaims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invasion of privacy, trespass to chattels, violation of computer fraud and abuse act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Interestingly, this was the same court in which another judge, Judge Rudi Brewster, threw out the RIAA's complaint as "conclusory" "boilerplate" "speculation".

December 28, 2007, Order and Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Granting Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property


James said...

No mention in the counterclaim of MediaSentry being an unlicensed investigator? Why not?

Anonymous said...

On Feburary 8, 2007 at 18:47:06 EST Plaintiffs allegedly identified an individual using a P2P network at...

This judge clearly does not understand the facts of this case. It is not possible to identify an individual in this manner. Is this the judge's fault, or has someone not explained them to him properly?

Among other things, people don't share files. Computers share files. Have you identified the exact computer? Oh, I thought not.

Users of P2P networks can be identified by their Internet Protocol ("IP") address because each computer or network device that connects to a P2P network must have a unique IP address within the Internet to deliver files from one computer or network device to another.

I want to absolutely scream at this judge. He gets as far as "network device", and then looks like a total fool in his reasoning from that point – as though a "network device" is just another computer sharing files.

Would it be sufficient to bring in 255 computers, all connected through hubs to a single router, with all 255 computers showing the very same IP address to the Internet, and to the tools MediaSentry has used to identify this "individual"? Would the judge then see that the Plaintiffs have identified absolutely nothing except for an ISP account holder, provided that they actually got the IP address and time correct?

To establish a copyright infringement claim, plaintiffs must allege…(2)that defendant copied constituent elements of the work that are original.

In short, this judge buys into the argument that the moment you rip a CD you own to your computer hard drive, you have "Stolen One Copy." Distribution need not even be discussed.

Can you request another judge in a trial when your current judge has clearly shown is lack of grasp of the issues being argued? You should be able to.

There is no point in going on any further with point out obvious errors of fact and judgment in this decision. This judge absolutely destroys the idea that you can receive a fair trial under the law as written in federal court against a big corporation.

Mr. A.

James said...

"In short, this judge buys into the argument that the moment you rip a CD you own to your computer hard drive, you have "Stolen One Copy." Distribution need not even be discussed." -Mr. A

This judge believes everything the RIAA has spoken...or is that "misspoken?"

Anonymous said...

You know, if the Plaintiffs have actually identified an individual using a P2P network using merely an IP address and a time-stamp, does this mean that they could identify that very same individual using a P2P network a second time, again using just an IP address and a time-stamp *if* that individual was using a different ISP account the second time?

I think not!

Yet that's exactly what the statement of identifying an individual means. They have identified a particular person who has done the dirty deed. And isn't the law supposed to be precise in how they use words?