RIAA — what the judges say
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Ray Beckerman’s Recording Industry vs The People is a priceless repository of documents and posts centering on Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s victimisation of their own customers through the likes of their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) .
At the beginning, the Big 4 had it all their own way. But that’s changing. Fast.
For the last little while, Beckerman has been including quotes from judges on the receiving end of RIAA BS.
Here’s what they’ve had to say so far >>>
“[W]ithout actual distribution of copies…. there is no violation [of] the distribution right.” 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:9 (2007); see also id. N. 10 (collecting cases); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1162 (9th Cir. 2007)(affirming the district court’s finding “that distribution requires an ‘actual dissemination’ of a copy”)”.
-Hon. Janet Bond Arterton
District Judge
District of Connecticut
February 13, 2008
Atlantic v Brennan
– F.Supp.2d –, 2008 WL 445819
>>>
“The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.”
-Hon. S. James Otero
District Judge
Central District of California
March 2, 2007
Elektra v O’Brien
>>>
“Plaintiff … must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement….However, …. Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation.”
-Hon. Rudi M. Brewster
Senior District Judge
Southern District of California
August 17, 2007
Interscope v Rodriguez
2007 WL 2408484
>>>
“[I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here…..These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme…, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.”
-Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk
Magistrate Judge
District of Maine
January 25, 2008
Arista v Does 1-27
2008 WL 222283
>>>
“If this were to become a more typical course in prosecuting the type of allegations faced by defendant, it is reasonably foreseeable that members of the public would be more hesitant to use the Internet to share creative works in general, regardless of whether their specific conduct violated copyright law or occupied an area yet to be addressed by copyright law. Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case.”
-Hon. Donald C. Ashmanskas
Magistrate Judge
District of Oregon
September 21, 2007
Atlantic v Andersen
2008 WL 185806
>>>
“Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience.”
-Hon. Sam Sparks
-Hon. Lee Yeakel
District Judges
Western District of Texas
November 17, 2004
Fonovisa v Does 1-41
>>>
“[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal…..The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse.”
-Hon. S. James Otero
Central District of California
August 29, 2007
SONY BMG v Does 1-5
>>>
“[N]either Florida’s litigation privilege nor the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine serves as a shield for sham litigation.”
-Hon. Richard A. Lazzara
District Judge
Middle District of Florida
September 19, 2007
UMG v Del Cid
>>>
“[N]either the parties’ submissions nor the Court’s own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons…..In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs’ motivations in pursuing them….. [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or “primary” infringer.”
-Hon. Lee R. West
District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
February 6, 2007
Capitol v Foster
2007 WL 1028532
>>>
“The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs.”
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr.
District Judge
Eastern District of Virginia
July 12, 2007
Interscope v Does 1-7
494 F. Supp. 2d 388
>>>
“Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian “suspension of disbelief” to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member’s Internet files can be equally harmful…..Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule.”
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia
Magistrate Judge
District of New Mexico
May 24, 2007
Capitol v Does 1-16
2007 WL 1893603
>>>
“[T]he inducement rule…. is a sensible one for copyright. We adopt it here, holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties…..One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement….”
-Hon. David H. Souter, for the Court
Justice
U.S. Supreme Court
June 27, 2005
MGM v Grokster
545 U.S. 913
>>>
“[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered…..”
-Hon. David G. Trager
Senior District Judge
Eastern District of New York
November 9, 2006
UMG v Lindor
2006 WL 3335048
>>>
“[D]istributing unlawful copies of a copyrighted work does violate the copyright owner’s distribution right and, as a result, constitutes copyright infringement. In order to establish “distribution” of a copyrighted work, a party must show that an unlawful copy was disseminated “to the public.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(3); see National Car Rental v. Computer Associates , 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993); 2 Nimmer, § 8.11[A] at 8-137.”
-Hon. John D. Butzner, Jr.
Fourth Circuit
June 30, 1997
Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
118 F.3d 199
>>>
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Sweet! Looks like the judges have finally stopped taking bribes and wised up to the bullshit being tossed about by the RIAA’s so-called legal team. The parasites are losing their grip on what little precedence they ever had to terrorize anonymous internet users with no evidence. If all goes well, it won’t continue for much longer, and the parasites will be forced to pay damages to everyone they wrongfully accused of infringement. They’re not going to get away with it.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
It looks to be like the legal system is wising up to exactly what is going on with these so called infringement violation cases. Cases where nothing beyond speculation into maybe it happened being used as a fishing expedition for possible sources of income. Not only are the major media companies and their pet legal dogs on-a-leash beginning to reap the bad publicity from the public but now from the legal system as well. Continuation into this line of legal actions could result in the loss of their copyright privileges each time they come before the court with BS accusations. This more than anything could well spell the end of sue’em all when their very sources of income are threatened with termination.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“…one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties…”
-Hon. David H. Souter, for the Court
Justice
U.S. Supreme Court
June 27, 2005
MGM v Grokster
545 U.S. 913
**********
so why don’t/didn’t they go after the inventor of the best and most popular p2p “device” ever created, Bram Cohen?
(this is obviously a rhetorical question since BitTorrent, Bram, and his gang have been bought by MPAA and RIAA members – unless someone can give specific reasons.)
when Bram created it, he had a disclaimer on his website. and indeed, he has stated that he has never used his creation to share or download copyrighted material. Yeah, right. I think he stated that publicly only when the MPAA and RIAA started breathing down his neck. luckily Bram was easily coerced into selling out -his only other choice would have been settling out of court, a settlement that would have cost him millions. instead, he teamed up with the cartels, probably selling his once-open source BT code to them, and was instead rewarded with millions.
Bram can say all he wants that he never intended BitTorrent to be used to share copyrighted materials. And he might even be believed in court.
Justice Souter states “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement…”
If Bram’s intentions are to believed, he (and subsequently the new owners of the BT code – MPAA and RIAA, etc) must be held accountable even after the fact.
In BT’s early days, Bram never posted messages to filesharing sites requesting that BT be used to share copyrighted materials. he also never requested that it not be used to share copyrighted materials. How could he? the open source code – which he distributed freely – was disseminated too quickly for him to put a stop to it. instead, he did nothing until the cartels came a-knockin’ with lawsuits. and then what he did was to sell out.
if Souter’s decision stands, the meaning is akin to saying “ignorance of the law doesn’t make one innocent”. he posted the first versions of the BT program on his website and offered the code to anyone to play around with it and make improvements. that is also inducement, whether or not his intention regarding copyrighted materials was stated.
if grokster can be held accountable this way, so can Bram and the cartels. it would be a wonderful circus to see them all suing each other.
the horse has been out of the barn too long. the new owners of the formerly open source code have to live with it. both they and Bram acted too late. they are not in control of their Frankenstein-like creation.
and they will never be in control of the customers ever again.
to the cartels: we ain’t your bitches no more. you is our bitch now.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:45 am
catflap
I think i remember that some time ago someone else posted a comment linking to an archive org page where “Mr. BT” posted some different tune about copyrights and the law on his own site before he sold to the MAFIAA.
Can’t the people sue him like the MAFIAA sued grokster and get their “settlements” back this way?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
The problem for the RIAA is that there is a limit to how many judges they can corrupt.
Corrupting judges is an expensive and dangerous exercise.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
“They’re not going to get away with it.”
If they do they might be a bunch of bad ass ready to go on a shooting rempage against them.
Not recomanded!
February 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
This BS that one IP equal one person is comming to an end.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
The internet is made up of 200,000+ computers with 1.2+ billion users. That’s on average 4 to 8 people to a computer. Thus, 1 IP doesn’t equal 1 user.
Nice collection of quotes.