Wednesday, February 18, 2009

SUNY Albany must disclose student identities to the RIAA, Magistrate Judge holds in Arista Records v. Does 1-16

In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, an upstate case in which SUNY Albany students are being targeted, the Magistrate Judge has denied the motion by four (4) defendants to quash the subpoena.

The Magistrate Judge pointed out in his decision that there were 5 issues, and that he had decided all 5 issues in favor of the plaintiffs.

The defendants have 10 days to file objections.

February 18, 2009, Decision of Magistrate Judge

Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player


Alter_Fritz said...

Magistrate Judge Treece wrote:

"Here, we have only four Defendants who have moved to quash the subp oena. All of the
other Doe Defendants have been voluntarily dismissed from the action. Much like the circumstances
in Elektra Entm’t Group, Inc. v. Does 1-9, 2004 WL 2095581, at *8, we find ourselves with a
narrow group of potential defendants. Further, we are not certain that any of these current Doe Defendants will maintain their same posture if sued. To keep this finite community of defendants
within this lawsuit will not, at this juncture of the litigation, g enerate any prejudice or harm to their respective defenses. Moreover, a joint defense may be more advantageous than previously
considered. And should any prejudice or conflict arise, the Court can address the matter at that time.
As the facts and circumstances become ripe and suggest or warrant severance, all can avail themselves of such a request then.
Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, the Court finds that a
request to sever the Doe Defendants as premature."

In other words: "Hey, the plaintiffs might have violated the laws regarding joinder, and I might be an acomplice when I allow them to do it, but since it is only 4 persons that doesn't matter and the defendants might cow in once they are actually sued"

Now what an [censored] is this magistrate judge? Has he a recording contract/ or any other tie with one of the plaintiffs like the other famous judge that ruled similar unbelievable? Does he feels comfortable with RIAA's scorched earth methodology? Must one maybe illegal joind defendant first commit suicide and is that what this judge ment with maintaining ones same posture once sued?

Man, some judges you have there!

In my opinion disgusting reasoning by him!

Anonymous said...

This man cannot believe that this Magistrate Judge is living in the same world as the rest of us. If I were to file objections it would be to this judge himself and his beyond lame attempt to prolong this case at the expense of the Defendants - and on such speculative grounds, no less.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

Once again, a Magistrate Judge who is an adjunct law professor at Albany Law School...

Which has formed a partnership with SUNY Albany. ., University at Albany and Albany Law School Partner to Offer J.D./M.B.A. Degree...

Who has made no mention of his ties to the university, ruling on behalf of the Plaintiffs in a "Doe" lawsuit. Simply amazing.

Matt Fitzpatrick said...

Joint defense? Premature?

When does the RIAA ever bring file sharing cases against multiple named defendants not living under the same roof? When does the RIAA ever continue prosecuting a Doe case once they get expedited discovery?

Someone who's never seen an RIAA file sharing case might reason this way. Let's see if Judge McCurn (who I believe is the district judge in this case) is more familiar with the RIAA's pattern of litigation.

Anonymous said...

The judge noted the rules for joinder and just ignored them? That's just unbelievable.
-- Mike --

Anonymous said...

"...Even if the information was illegally obtained, this does not
necessarily foretell its inadmissibility during a civil trial. Other than an errant citation to a United States Supreme Court case, the Doe Defendants do not proffer any other precedent to uphold this
notion that illegally obtained evidence is somehow excluded from a civil trial, and this Court has
been unable to unearth any case to confirm this novel concept."

Basically saying that you can break the law if you have enough money and resources. Then you can use the fruits of your activity to bankrupt whoever you wish, because the process is not ripe? I thought that a suit had been filed? Is he collaborating the abuse plaintiff’s of process by saying that the claims against MediaSentry are premature? It is better to force kids to be subjected to the extortion scheme, rather than to do the right thing and throw the case or the evidence out, illegally gathered out?

Is he really be saying that??

Reluctant Raconteur said...

I understand that he is making the distinction between evidence standards in civil vs criminal cases.

I don't understand why.

I know the standard to convict is lower in civil but I had assumed there were similar standards for evidence.

This can only be a novel defense in terms of 'hasn't worked before' rather than 'hasn't been tried before'.

Anonymous said...

Russell, IANAL, but I believe the judge is being pedantic pointlessly.

Suppose the evidence was illegally obtained but *is* admissible. Then, it is probably true that some affirmative defenses arise, because plaintiffs hired MediaSentry to break the law.

Which is to say, I imagine the question isn't, "Is the evidence admissible?", but rather, "Doesn't the evidence lead to summary judgment in favor of defendant?"