Thursday, May 22, 2008

Reconsideration motion denied in Elektra v. Barker

The defendant's reconsideration motion in Elektra v. Barker was denied, for the reasons that:

-it was untimely;
-the authorities cited (Atlantic v. Howell, London-Sire v. Doe 1, and Capitol v. Thomas) are not "controlling" authorities; and
-the authorities cited were issued subsequent to the Court's decision, and therefore had not been "overlooked".

May 22, 2008, Opinion and Order denying motion for reconsideration*

* 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


raybeckerman said...

Comment rejected. Policies #4, 7, and 8.

Anonymous said...

As much as I hate to see it -- It looks like the "Reconsideration Motion" should have been denied.

raybeckerman said...

Make that 2 comments rejected for violations of comment polices #4, 7, and 8.

Anonymous said...

I give up.


H said...

I have an issue with BayTSP's notices with regards to file sharing.

They are illegal for two reasons:

They always state that BayTSP swears that it represents a certain company, but they never list accurate contact information to BayTSP. The law says that the sender must specify its location. How about BayTSP gives us its street address?

With respect to file sharing, the DMCA says "information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material"

But with file sharing, we NEVER have information that can locate the infringing material.

Information to locate the material should look like this:

That can tell the service provider exactly where the file is, and the service provider can access it.

But providing an ISP with an IP address is NOT sufficient to locate the infringing material. A single IP address could have downloaded and uploaded thousands of files in an hour.

Ultimately, we need to sue the ISPs that are complying with such notices because the law is very specific with respect to the contents of these notices.

Jadeic said...

Self-censorship is where it's at. These people know how vilified they are.

raybeckerman said...

Dear anonymous XK-E

Please don't "give up".

Your post seemed to have assumed that the original decision was handed down by Judge Sullivan, which is not so.

You are critical of the decision but without any legal or factual basis for your criticism.

Judge Sullivan is a good judge.

Judge Karas is a good judge.

I am confident that, in some other procedural manner, they will ultimately make it right.

For our voices to carry weight, we have to be balanced and fair in our commentary. If we attack everything that goes against us, no one will take our views seriously.

This is not a case like the string of inexplicable discovery rulings in UMG v. Lindor.

Even Judge Karas's initial error, in equating "distribution" with "publication", is not inexplicable; I can readily understand how it happened. Fortunately, Judge Gertner and Judge Wake have carefully analyzed the issue, and, I believe, come up with the correct result.

I am sure Judge Karas will get it right, too.

raybeckerman said...

PS The reason I say Judge Karas, even though the case has been assigned to Judge Sullivan, is that usually only the judge who issued the decision can recall the decision and modify it.