File cases separately, RIAA told
p2pnet.net News:- Another attempt by the RIAA to cut corners in cases it’s bringing against John and Jane Does it claims used p2p file swapping applications to share unauthorised music, has been thwarted.
In BMG Music v Does 1-203 filed in Philadelphia, Pa, Judge Clarence Newcomer decided the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has to file separate complaints against each of the 203 people involved, and pay a full filing fee for each case for a total of about $30,000.
The RIAA, owned by the Big Five record labels, must also make individual allegations against each defendant.
"Judge Newcomer retained the case against Doe #1, one of the three defendants about whom the music companies had provided detailed evidence (more than a hundred pages, each listing many songs made available for download), and authorized the issuance of a subpoena for that individual’s identity only," says the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) here.
Public Citizen, the EFF and American Civil Liberties Union filed amicus briefs arguing that persons accused of file sharing should be accorded minimal due process rights before subpoenas are authorized to identify them.
Although Newcomer left it to the discretion of each judge to whom the 202 new complaints would be assigned to decide how to handle discovery, "it would seem that in each case, the plaintiffs will need an affidavit making the proper showing about that individual defendant," says the EFF.
"Defendants will presumably need to decide, in each case, whether they can allege that filing in Philadelphia is appropriate."
In Motown Record Co v Does 1-252 filed against 252 Doe alleged unauthorised file sharers, Judge Willis Hunt authorized a subpoena, and required that the ISP concerned – Cox – be allowed a full 25 days before compliance with the subpoena so the subscribers could have extra time to object to identification.
"However, the Court declined to consider the constitutional issue that amici raised on the grounds that they were premature and could be raised by the Defendants (and amici at that time) once the Defendants have been notified that their identities are being sought," says the EFF, adding that jjdges hearing Virgin Records v. Does 1-44 and BMI Recordings v. Does 1-199 are still considering the issues presented by the motions and by amici, adds the EFF.
* BMG Music v Does 1-203 (Philadelphia) – ISP , Comcast
* Motown Record Co v Does 1-252 (Atlanta) – ISP, Cox Communications
* Virgin Records v Does 1-44 (Atlanta) – ISP, Earthlink
* BMI Recordings v Does 1-199 (Washington, DC) – ISP, Verizon
March 9th, 2004 at 10:06 am
Although I do not wish to see anyone sued. I feel it is neccessary that these cases go to court. If a few hundred cases end up in court it could mean big media attention and possibly a victory on the side of those being sued. It would at the very least bring things back to the attention of the major media and could have all kinds of implications on amending copyright law.
It needs to get into actual court cases. Settling is not going to slve anything.