Tuesday, October 20, 2009

RIAA Case Watch List

For those of you who have or want to open PACER accounts, and want to help out in the fight against the RIAA's litigation campaign, here is a watch list of cases which I'd appreciate your monitoring whenever you can.

This is not an all-inclusive list of cases we are watching, but just a select list of cases that need extra watching for various reasons.

If anything happens in one of these cases, please email me the *pdf's. This will be a recurring post, in which cases will be added to and subtracted from the list, so bookmark the permalink near the bottom of this post.

The PACER login page is here. To sign up for PACER go here.

Please look only for documents subsequent to August 9, 2009.

Instructions: Log in. Go to district court, then input case number. Request "docket report". If there is new activity, download *pdf file and email to me. (If you're not sure if it's important enough, email me and ask.) Thanks. -R.B.
RIAA Case Watchlist

District, Case no., Case name

Minnesota: 06-1497 Capitol Records v. Thomas
Oregon: 07-934 Andersen v. Atlantic Recording

Commentary & discussion:


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


Anonymous said...

Ray -
Should SONY BMG v. Williams be UMG v. Williams?

raybeckerman said...

Stephen, this is not a complete list of all cases... just cases for which I do not have regular sources of information.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your great website that is wise enough to make it simple by having a long page! EASY, simple, people will read it more. You get an A in presentation. Clicks and lots of pages are annoying!
If these pages get too long, having a text download of all in one page would be nice.

Alter_Fritz said...


Me isn't 100% sure if your comment was meant sarcasticly or not!

But if it was, then don't blame Ray, that so much happened in just over 1 month posting span that fills this one mothly overview page.
Blame the deciders and the lawyer vultures from those "well known and respected record companies" that so much reportworthy happend in such a short timeframe instead of that they simple go bankrupt and leave artists and their Fans alone!

Alter_Fritz said...


Matt Fitzpatrick said...

The EFF has posted their amicus filing on their Capitol v. Thomas page. (direct link to PDF)

Alter_Fritz said...

While you are at it Matt;

the "10 professor's"-friends of the court brief is reachable via wired too.


Who are they?


What do they say?


Anyone else acted friendly towards the court?

Alter_Fritz said...

P.S. note that me is aware of the MPAA ones too, but their warped logic I do not count as "friend of judge David" papers since they seem to want to get rid of Judges and a proof of infringement in the first place to paint one responsible for "damages" completely :-(


Anonymous said...

Regarding the EFF amicus filing pointed to by Alter Fritz, the following thoughts came to mind:

The Defense should be looking into what files MediaSentry may have been "making available for distribution" (i.e. sharing) during the time(s) they downloaded their "evidence". Many users manually, and some programs automatically, refuse to allow leechers (leechers = filesharing users who seek to download files from other users while not offering files or upload slots themselves). So the question I haven't heard asked (or answered) yet is: what image of a "typical user" does MediaSentry show other users during their downloading? Are they offering files to appear legitimate and trick users into allowing them to download from them. And if so, what are these files being "made available"? If MediaSentry is actually offering files for downloading as an employee of the recording industry, does that remove copyright from those files since they're now being officially placed on P2P networks?

MediaSentry's outrageous behavior is certainly fertile ground for further investigation into every facet of their deceptions.

I do wish that the EFF wasn't giving these Plaintiffs suggestions as to other ways to pursue their suits, even if those other ways are more burdensome than the current methods employed.


Anonymous said...

Ray, would love to help with this. Can you make the post a little easier to understand for the uninitiated? For example are links to the individual court's Pacer sites needed? And can you think of a way to let us know what files you already have so lots of people aren't sending you the same ones? I signed up for a Pacer account and it says it could take a week to get the login since I didn't put in a CC. But it seems they don't bill for under $10, so this is an easy way to help out. But before I went and read up on Pacer I was really confused. Also I live by one of those District courts. Can I go there and get documents too?

raybeckerman said...

1. No you go to PACER, sign in, go to civil, pick court.

2. "Getting" documents at the courthouse would be meaningless, as what we need are the electronically filed pdf's.

3. Assume I have everything more than a month old.

Anonymous said...

I just attempted to e-mail you and received the following:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you have sent could not be delivered to one or more
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address failed:

rbeckerman@vanfeliu.com: 550 5.1.1 User unknown

raybeckerman said...

Apologies. The email address in this post was my old email address, which was changed over a year ago. I just updated now to my present email address.