tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post2836795887326340656..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: Louisiana Judge says no to RIAA's request for default judgment without a hearingraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-28257674963216258922008-02-03T22:38:00.000-05:002008-02-03T22:38:00.000-05:00Dear Ronald, if you have any authority for grantin...Dear Ronald, if you have any authority for granting written default judgments in tort cases, and for waiving the plaintiffs' obligation to produce competent evidence to support his right to relief, I would be curious to see it. If you have authority in the statutes or the Federal Rules, I'll eat my words.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-45656713643186445742008-02-03T22:36:00.000-05:002008-02-03T22:36:00.000-05:00Dear Ronald, In my view it is an error for a judge...Dear Ronald, In my view it is an error for a judge to grant a default judgment in a tort case. There is no legal authority anywhere for doing it.<BR/><BR/>I can't expect you to agree with me, since your clients appear to have benefitted from the same error.<BR/><BR/>Nor can I expect you to admit that it is unusual.<BR/><BR/>Neither is there any legal authority for treating a copyright infringement or trademark infringement case any different than any other tort case.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-7336308514846412472008-02-03T14:53:00.000-05:002008-02-03T14:53:00.000-05:00I have obtained default judgments for trademark in...I have obtained default judgments for trademark infringement and copyright infringements in various different federal courts. There is no such "norm." Indeed in cases where the defendant does not appear, it is common for default judgments and inquests to be made entirely on the papers. Other judges want to see a face in court. There is no legal rule nor any particular reason why one approach is better than the other in all cases.Ron Colemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971795311919587950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-1642132863527515042008-01-31T19:32:00.000-05:002008-01-31T19:32:00.000-05:00Dear Anonymous XK-E. Would you do me a favor and p...Dear Anonymous XK-E. Would you do me a favor and put the MediaSentry comment in the MediaSentry post as well, because I think our comment section is about to be visited by the Slashdot community.<BR/>Thanks.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-55654515155657767822008-01-31T18:35:00.000-05:002008-01-31T18:35:00.000-05:00[Ed. Note. It is the norm, in tort -- as opposed t...<I>[Ed. Note. It is the norm, in tort -- as opposed to contract -- cases, to require such an evidentiary hearing before awarding a judgment. Copyright infringement is a tort. The RIAA, however, has somehow been able to convince most judges to dispense with such a hearing, and to just rubber stamp the RIAA's request for a default judgment</I><BR/><BR/>Ray, did you by chance go to a different law school, and face a different bar examination, than all of these other judges – excluding, of course, the judge in the instant case here?<BR/><BR/>This case seems like an excellent for an amicus curie to ensure that the judge is fully aware of all the issues relevant to the incomplete, illegal, illogical, and plain outright faulty "evidence" that the RIAA routinely presents. Starting with the very first line of the RIAA motion that states in Background: <B>Users of peer-to-peer networks who distribute files over a computer network can be identified by using Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses because of the unique IP address of the computer distributing the files…</B>Of course, actual "users" can <B>never</B> be identified in this manner.<BR/><BR/>And from the SafeNet declarations you also posted today, in the instant case motion the RIAA contends: <B>When available, MediaSentry invokes this feature of a peer-to-peer program, just as any other user could do…</B> SafeNet has already declared that the programs and methods they use are a result of tens of thousands of man-hours over five years of effort to develop. Doesn't the RIAA even read the declarations of their investigators?<BR/><BR/>XK-EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-41615934521115419632008-01-31T18:21:00.000-05:002008-01-31T18:21:00.000-05:00Upon closer inspection of their motion for waive t...Upon closer inspection of their motion for waive the the evidentiary hearing, they apparently dropped the telephone number analogy for a postal address analogy. This is just as shaky as the phone theory, since multiple people can live at an address, or someone could have their mail routed to a different address than their own.<BR/><BR/>ZH<BR/>(forgot to tag the first post)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-6829635366938732262008-01-31T17:53:00.000-05:002008-01-31T17:53:00.000-05:00If these torts have been filed and rubberstamped w...If these torts have been filed and rubberstamped without the proper procedure, couldn't the judgment be overturned afterwards due to failure to follow procedure, or failure to present evidence?<BR/><BR/>I'd think that the resulting judgment would be considered to be given completely on hearsay, given that anyone can print out a list of IP addresses and say that they're identifying someone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com