Monday, March 09, 2009

SUNY Albany student appeals "John Doe" ruling to Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Arista v. Does 1-16

In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, the case targeting students at the State University of New York in Albany, one of the students -- represented by Manhattan litigator Richard A. Altman -- has appealed to the US Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit from the District Judge's order denying the student's motion to sever, to vacate, and to quash, and directing SUNY Albany to divulge the student's identity.

The student has asked the appeals court for a stay of the subpoena pending appeal.

Declaration in support of motion for stay

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


Anonymous said...

May we add that the defendants have already been harmed by the violation of law that occurred when they were subjected to secrete investigation by an unlicensed, unregulated third party who was hired by the plaintiffs,(and who has a contract with the US government).

Anonymous said...

a. The standards for the use of ex parte procedures for expedited discovery;

Yes, the RIAA Plaintiffs have long been playing fast and loose with the judicial system in this regard when offering the exceptionally weak justification that "We don't know who the Defendants are yet so we don't have to have them present."

e. Whether such a motion can be referred to a Magistrate Judge without consent of
the parties;

This man has wondered about this very issue in the past, given the absolutely atrocious record of Magistrate Judges in these cases and lack of Defendant consent.

Of course this appeal doesn't deal with the truly egregious issue of issuing subpoenas based on known illegal investigations where the damage comes at the moment of piercing the veil of anonymity, while claiming that this is an issue to be dealt with at trial – for a trial that never comes. This man wonders why the issue of one's anonymity can only be questioned after individual lawsuits, the destruction of one's character in the public forum, and intrusive discovery, to build a case that simply didn't exist in the beginning where it should have been stopped! It's like if you will allow me to break into his (Defendant's) house and rummage around long enough I'll probably come up with something incriminating. If not I'll simply leave that house in a mess and dismiss my case letting him pay for all the cleanup and repair.

It appears to this man that too often that the courts are bending so far over backwards to allow these Plaintiffs to create a case where none exists until a Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are thoroughly and completely trampled that the courts have put their collective heads in that warm dark place.

In truth, Doe #3 should not even be in this case at this point. He/she should have been severed immediately under improper joinder and not required to finance a case alone to the benefit of all the Does involved. That point is also not brought up, but should have been.

identifies putative defendants by their Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses, which are claimed (erroneously) to be unique identifiers of persons who are logged on to the internet at specific dates and times. Solely on the basis of the IP addresses, plaintiffs claim that these students are copyright infringers, and serve subpoenas on the universities demanding disclosure of their identifying information. Once their identities are disclosed, plaintiffs dismiss their Doe actions without prejudice, and then address demand letters to the students, who are generally forced to settle for non-negotiable sums ranging from $3000 to $5000. Those who do not settle or respond are sued. Most settle, many default, and a few decide to defend themselves against what it is not exaggeration to characterize as an abuse of the federal courts and of copyright law itself.

Now that puts in plain words the entire RIAA Fear and Extortion campaign as succinctly as this man has yet seen it explained.

One prays for this Appeals Court to see this issue in all its ramifications with more clarity than has been exhibited at the district, and especially Magistrate Judge, level.

{The Common Man Speaking}