Sunday, November 21, 2010

Judge requires plaintiff to show basis for jurisdiction in Achte/Neunte v Does 1-4577

Thank you to Slashdot and Slyck for bringing this most recent ruling to my attention.

In Achte/Neunte v. Does 1-4577, one of the mass file sharing "John Doe" cases, involving motion pictures, following the RIAA model, the judge has ruled that the plaintiff is required to show a basis for suing defendants in the District of Columbia court.

The ruling came about in the context of an order partially granting plaintiff's motion to extend time to serve defendants.

Order partially granting motion for extension of time to make service

The defendants who'd opposed the motion were represented by:

Carey N. Lening of Washington, D.C.
Christina A. DiEdoardo of San Francisco, California
Tuna Mecit of Washington, D.C., and
Bradford A. Patrick of Tampa, Florida

Opposition memorandum

The Court has previously denied various motions to quash in this case. See, e.g.

Order denying motion to quash (9/10/10)
Order denying motion to quash (11/18/10)

The Court has also granted Time Warner a partial protective order:

Order granting Time Warner limited protective order

And the Court has ruled that the defendants -- who are seeking to preserve their anonymity -- may not proceed anonymously. I.e., any defendant who wants to try to prevent Time Warner from disclosing his or her name and address to the plaintiff must disclose his name and address to the plaintiff. [?!]

Order requiring John Does to disclose their identities in order to participate in the litigation

[Ed. note. It's about time a judge has woken up to the lack of personal jurisdiction in the John Doe cases. I've been pointing out this injustice for the past 5 years. It's outrageous to be suing the "John Doe" defendants hundreds or thousands of miles away from where they reside. Why have so many judges, including Judge Collyer, ignored that issue to date? -R.B.]

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 Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 15, 2010

Music Dish: One Down, Three To Go: The Music Biz Shrinks Yet Again, as Courts Close EMI

Interesting article on "Music Dish":

One Down, Three To Go: The Music Biz Shrinks Yet Again, as Courts Close EMI
EMI has lost in court and it's now only a matter of time before its assets are chopped up

By Moses Avalon

It's official, EMI has lost in court and it's now only a matter of time before its assets are chopped up, dispersed and the famous Capital Records building in Hollywood goes condo. After EMI is dismantled there will remain only WMG, UNI and Sony as the remaining "Big Three" labels in the US and the UK.

The Silicon Valley giants are probably very excited today, since this means that there are only three major record distributors left to destroy before they can finally buy up their catalogs and not have to deal with the RIAA or their stupid one-sided interpretation of the Copyright Act.

Yes, this is great day indeed for those who think music should be free. Because the Beatles recordings along with Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, and many others will probably soon be the property of an ISP giant, or computer company who will use them as loss leader to attract subscribers.
Complete article


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 Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Reply brief filed by amicus curiae on jury instruction issue in Capitol v Thomas-Rasset

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, amicus curiae Prof. Charles Nesson had filed a reply brief on the jury instruction issue.

Amicus reply brief

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 Bookmark and Share

Jury awards $1.5 million in Jammie Thomas case

In the damages retrial in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, which concluded yesterday, after the Judge refused to instruct the jurors that the amount of the award was required to bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages sustained by plaintiffs, the jury returned a verdict of $62,500 per song, for a total of $1.5 million.

The Judge has previously ruled that the maximum allowable amount in the case is $54,000.

Court minutes
Verdict

[Ed. note. No surprises here, given the contents of the jury instructions and verdict form. The only surprises are that (a) the judge felt it necessary to have a predictably futile third trial, (b) the judge refused to instruct the jury that the statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages, which is a fundamental tenet of the law regarding copyright infringement, and (c) the judge has so far declined to reach the constitutional issue which is staring him in the face. It also seems odd to me that the judge had not instructed the jury that plaintiffs had proved a copying -- i.e. a download -- but not a "distribution" as defined in the Copyright Act. -R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet
slashdot
ars technica
Los Angeles Times
p2pnet.net
Electronic Frontier Foundation




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 Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

According to court records Capitol v Thomas-Rasset damages retrial commenced yesterday, continued today

According to court records, the damages retrial in
Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset commenced yesterday and was continued today, Prof. Nesson was granted leave to file an amicus brief, and the RIAA filed a responding brief.

Nesson amicus brief
RIAA response

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 Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 01, 2010

Prof. Nesson admitted pro hac vice in Capitol v Thomas-Rasset

In the Minnesota case Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, law school professor Charles Nesson, who represents Joel Tenenbaum, in a Massachusetts case, has been admitted pro hac vice to assist in representing defendant. The defendant's lawyers are former students of his. I have been informed that the trial is scheduled to start tomorrow -- November 2nd [election day?!]

In addition,

-Prof. Nesson filed an amicus brief;
-the brief was rejected by the court due to no motion for leave to file having been made; and
-Prof. Nesson thereafter made a motion for leave to file.



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 Bookmark and Share