Slashdot Mirror

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Washington woman sued by the RIAA has asked the Court to award her attorneys fees, after the record company plaintiffs (Interscope Records, Capitol Records, SONY BMG, Atlantic Recording, BMG Music, and Virgin Records) dropped their case against her after two years of litigation, in Interscope v. Leadbetter. The brief submitted by her attorneys (pdf) pointed out the similarity between Ms. Leadbetter's case and Capitol v. Foster. In the Leadbetter case, as well as Foster case, the RIAA sued the woman solely because she had paid for an internet access account, and then later in the case attempted to plead 'secondary liability' against her without any factual basis for doing so. This tactic had been repudiated by Judge Lee R. West in Capitol v. Foster as 'marginal' and 'untested' in his initial decision awarding attorneys fees, and in his later decision denying the RIAA's motion for reconsideration."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Boston University student identified only as one of the 21 'John Does' in Arista v. Does 1-21 has challenged the RIAA's alleged right to get his or her identity from the school, bringing a motion to vacate the ex parte discovery order obtained by the RIAA, and to quash the subpoena served on the university. John Doe's court papers (PDF) argue, among other things, that the RIAA's papers are 'based on a flawed theory that having copyrighted music files on an individual's computer or on an assigned folder on Boston University's server is a "distribution" of such copyrighted music files, where such folder is merely accessible by others.'"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After 2 years, the RIAA has finally dropped its longstanding case against disabled single mother Tanya Andersen in Oregon, Atlantic v. Andersen. The dismissal (pdf) relates merely to the RIAA's claims against Ms. Andersen, and does not relate to her (a) claim for attorneys fees or (b) counterclaims against the RIAA, which are presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss. The counterclaims were first interposed in December 2005. This is the same case in which the RIAA insisted on taking a face to face deposition of a 10 year old girl. Prior to the case, neither the mother nor the child had ever even heard of file sharing."

theantipop writes "Stanford didn't like appearing on the MPAA's list of 25 worst offenders. Last week the university issued notice of a new policy in which students are charged a reconnection fee, ranging from $100 to $1000, if they fail to respond quickly enough to a DMCA complaint. The policy is to take effect September 1 this year. As a show of 'good faith' they are graciously allowing all students to start at the $100 fee level for subsequent notices."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Marie Lindor has retained an expert witness of her own to fight the RIAA, and to debunk the testimony and reports of the RIAA's 'expert' Dr. Doug Jacobson, whose reliability has been challenged by Ms. Lindor in her Brooklyn federal court case, UMG v. Lindor. Ms. Lindor's expert is none other than Prof. Johan Pouwelse, Chairman of the Parallel and Distributed Systems Group of Delft University of Technology. It was Prof. Pouwelse's scathing analysis of the RIAA's MediaSentry 'investigations' (PDF) in a case in the Netherlands that caused the courts in that country to direct the ISPs there not to turn over their subscribers' information (PDF), thus nipping in the bud the RIAA's intended litigation juggernaut in that country."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Marie Lindor has retained an expert witness of her own to fight the RIAA, and to debunk the testimony and reports of the RIAA's 'expert' Dr. Doug Jacobson, whose reliability has been challenged by Ms. Lindor in her Brooklyn federal court case, UMG v. Lindor. Ms. Lindor's expert is none other than Prof. Johan Pouwelse, Chairman of the Parallel and Distributed Systems Group of Delft University of Technology. It was Prof. Pouwelse's scathing analysis of the RIAA's MediaSentry 'investigations' (PDF) in a case in the Netherlands that caused the courts in that country to direct the ISPs there not to turn over their subscribers' information (PDF), thus nipping in the bud the RIAA's intended litigation juggernaut in that country."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA seems to have a problem making things stick in the Windy City. It has once again backed down in BMG v. Thao, after suing a misidentified defendant. Same thing occurred last October in Elektra v. Wilke. In the Thao case, the RIAA based its case on information that the cable modem used to partake in file sharing was registered to Mr. Thao. However, it turned out that Mr. Thao was not even a subscriber (pdf) of the ISP (pdf) at the time of the alleged file-sharing, and therefore did not have possession of the suspect cable modem at that time."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA seems to have a problem making things stick in the Windy City. It has once again backed down in BMG v. Thao, after suing a misidentified defendant. Same thing occurred last October in Elektra v. Wilke. In the Thao case, the RIAA based its case on information that the cable modem used to partake in file sharing was registered to Mr. Thao. However, it turned out that Mr. Thao was not even a subscriber (pdf) of the ISP (pdf) at the time of the alleged file-sharing, and therefore did not have possession of the suspect cable modem at that time."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an attempt to change the rules of the game, the RIAA secretly went to a federal district court in Denver with an ex parte application. The goal was to get the judge to rule that the federal Cable Communications Policy Act does not apply to the RIAA's attempts to get subscriber information (pdf) from cable companies. Just to clarify, ex parte means that the application was secret, no one else — neither the ISP nor the subscribers — were given notice that this was going on. They were, in effect, asking the Court to rule that the RIAA does not need to get a court order to be able to force an ISP to disclose confidential subscriber information. The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an attempt to change the rules of the game, the RIAA secretly went to a federal district court in Denver with an ex parte application. The goal was to get the judge to rule that the federal Cable Communications Policy Act does not apply to the RIAA's attempts to get subscriber information (pdf) from cable companies. Just to clarify, ex parte means that the application was secret, no one else — neither the ISP nor the subscribers — were given notice that this was going on. They were, in effect, asking the Court to rule that the RIAA does not need to get a court order to be able to force an ISP to disclose confidential subscriber information. The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is now challenging the counterclaims (PDF) in Atlantic v. Andersen, for Electronic Trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Invasion of Privacy, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, the tort of Outrage, Deceptive Business Practices under Oregon Trade Practices Act, and Oregon RICO, first discussed here in October 2005. The RIAA has moved to dismiss the counterclaims (PDF) brought by a disabled single mother in Oregon who lives on Social Security Disability and has never engaged in file sharing, this after unsuccessfully trying to force the face-to-face deposition of Ms. Andersen's 10-year-old daughter. Ms. Andersen's lawyer has filed opposition papers (PDF)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is now challenging the counterclaims (PDF) in Atlantic v. Andersen, for Electronic Trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Invasion of Privacy, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, the tort of Outrage, Deceptive Business Practices under Oregon Trade Practices Act, and Oregon RICO, first discussed here in October 2005. The RIAA has moved to dismiss the counterclaims (PDF) brought by a disabled single mother in Oregon who lives on Social Security Disability and has never engaged in file sharing, this after unsuccessfully trying to force the face-to-face deposition of Ms. Andersen's 10-year-old daughter. Ms. Andersen's lawyer has filed opposition papers (PDF)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is now challenging the counterclaims (PDF) in Atlantic v. Andersen, for Electronic Trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Invasion of Privacy, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, the tort of Outrage, Deceptive Business Practices under Oregon Trade Practices Act, and Oregon RICO, first discussed here in October 2005. The RIAA has moved to dismiss the counterclaims (PDF) brought by a disabled single mother in Oregon who lives on Social Security Disability and has never engaged in file sharing, this after unsuccessfully trying to force the face-to-face deposition of Ms. Andersen's 10-year-old daughter. Ms. Andersen's lawyer has filed opposition papers (PDF)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its 'reconsideration' motion in Capitol v. Foster as 'disingenuous' and 'not true,' and accused the RIAA of 'questionable motives.' The decision (PDF) reaffirmed Judge West's earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees." Read more for NewYorkCountryLawyer's summary of the smackdown.
The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true." This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Houston, Texas, case, UMG v. Hightower, the RIAA has served a subpoena on the defendant's son, a high school student, on one day's notice, telling him to be at a lawyer's office at 9:00 a.m. the next day, a school day, for a deposition. The defendant's lawyer objected (PDF)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Arguing that the RIAA and big record labels may be misusing their copyrights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has jumped in on the defendant's side in a White Plains, New York, court conflict. The case is Lava v. Amurao, and the EFF will be defending Mr. Amurao's right to counterclaim for copyright misuse. EFF argued that the RIAA, by deliberately bringing meritless cases against innocent people based on theories of 'secondary liability', are abusing their copyrights. In its amicus brief, EFF also decried (just as when it joined the ACLU, Public Citizen, and others on the side of Debbie Foster in Capitol v. Foster) the RIAA's 'driftnet' litigation strategy. They argue that the declaratory judgment remedy must also be made available to defendants, in view of the RIAA's habit of dropping the meritless cases it started but can't finish."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's attempt to get Ms. Lindor's son's desktop computer in UMG v. Lindor has been rejected by the Magistrate Judge. The judge said that the RIAA 'offered little more than speculation to support their request for an inspection of Mr. Raymond's desktop computer, based on ... his family relationship to the defendant, the proximity of his house to the defendant's house, and his determined defense of his mother in this case. That is not enough. On the record before me, plaintiffs have provided scant basis to authorize an inspection of Mr. Raymond's desktop computer.' Decision by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. (pdf)"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG v. Merchant, in California, the defendant's lawyer wrote the RIAA a rather stern letter recounting how weak the RIAA's evidence is, referring to the deposition of the RIAA's expert witness (see Slashdot commentary), and threatening a malicious prosecution lawsuit. The very same day the RIAA put its tail between its legs and dropped the case, filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. About an hour earlier NYCL had termed the letter a 'model letter'; maybe he was right."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG v. Merchant, in California, the defendant's lawyer wrote the RIAA a rather stern letter recounting how weak the RIAA's evidence is, referring to the deposition of the RIAA's expert witness (see Slashdot commentary), and threatening a malicious prosecution lawsuit. The very same day the RIAA put its tail between its legs and dropped the case, filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. About an hour earlier NYCL had termed the letter a 'model letter'; maybe he was right."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The latest target of the RIAA's ire is a 10-year-old girl in Oregon, who was 7 when the alleged infringement occurred, and whose disabled mother lives on Social Security. In Atlantic v. Andersen, an Oregon case that was widely reported in 2005 when the defendant counterclaimed against the RIAA under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws, the defendant's mother sought to limit the RIAA's deposition of the child to telephone or video-conference. The RIAA has refused, insisting on being able to grill the little girl in person. Here are court documents (PDF)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The latest target of the RIAA's ire is a 10-year-old girl in Oregon, who was 7 when the alleged infringement occurred, and whose disabled mother lives on Social Security. In Atlantic v. Andersen, an Oregon case that was widely reported in 2005 when the defendant counterclaimed against the RIAA under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws, the defendant's mother sought to limit the RIAA's deposition of the child to telephone or video-conference. The RIAA has refused, insisting on being able to grill the little girl in person. Here are court documents (PDF)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When the RIAA was ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records to the defendant's lawyer in Capitol v. Foster, there was speculation that they would never comply with the order. As it turns out they have indeed balked at compliance, saying that they are preparing a motion for a protective order seeking confidentiality (something they could have asked for, but didn't, in their opposition papers to the initial motion). Having none of that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has now made a motion to compel their compliance with the Court's March 15th order."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk. The defendant John Paladuk was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement, and had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement. Despite the fact that Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year (pdf), rendering him disabled, the RIAA commenced suit against him on February 27, 2007. Suing the disabled is not new to the RIAA. Both Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon and Elektra v. Schwartz in New York were suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Both of these cases are still pending. The local Michigan lawyer being used by the RIAA in the Paladuk case is the same lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition in Motown v. Nelson. In the Warner v. Scantlebury case, after the defendant died during the lawsuit, the same lawyer indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has been ordered to turn over its attorneys' billing records by March 26, 2007, in Capitol v. Foster in Oklahoma. The 4- page decision and order, issued in connection with the determination of the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's attorneys fees, requires the RIAA to produce the attorneys' time sheets, billing statements, billing records, and costs and expense records. The Court reviewed authorities holding that an opponent's attorneys fees are a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees, quoting a United States Supreme Court case which held that 'a party cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent by his opponent in response' (footnote 11 to City of Riverside v. Rivera)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The online community now has an opportunity to see the fruits of its labor. Back in December, the Slashdot ('What Questions Would You Ask an RIAA Expert?') and Groklaw ('Another Lawyer Would Like to Pick Your Brain, Please') communities were asked for their input on possible questions to pose to the RIAA's 'expert'. Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University, was scheduled to be deposed in February in UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case. Ms. Lindor's lawyers were flooded with about 1400 responses. The deposition of Dr. Jacobson went forward on February 23, 2007, and the transcript is now available online (pdf) (ascii). Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Lindor's attorneys, had this comment: 'We are deeply grateful to the community for reviewing our request, for giving us thoughts and ideas, and for reviewing other readers' responses. Now I ask the tech community to review this all-important transcript, and bear witness to the shoddy investigation and junk science upon which the RIAA has based its litigation war against the people. The computer scientists among you will be astounded that the RIAA has been permitted to burden our court system with cases based upon such arrant and careless nonsense.'"

NewYorkCountryLawyer updates us now that the legal issue — is it copyright infringement merely to "make available" a copyrighted work? — has been argued by the attorneys in Elektra v. Barker (on January 26). Whichever way the ruling goes it will have a large impact across the Internet. Appeal seems likely either way. No ruling has issued yet but "a friend" has made the 58-page transcript "available" (PDF here).

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has sent out a letter to the ISPs telling them to stop making mistakes in identifying subscribers, and offering a 'Pre-Doe settlement option' — with a discount of '$1000 or more' — to their subscribers, if and only if the ISP agrees to preserve its logs for 180 days. Other interesting points in the letter (PDF): the RIAA will be launching a web site for 'early settlements,' www.p2plawsuits.com; the letter asks the ISPs to notify the RIAA if they have previously 'misidentified a subscriber account in response to a subpoena' or become aware of 'technical information... that causes you to question the information that you provided in response to our clients' subpoena'; it notes that ISPs have identified 'John Does' who were not even subscribers of the ISP at the time of the infringement; and it requests that ISPs furnish their underlying log files, not just names and addresses, when responding to RIAA subpoenas."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In its professed battle to protect the 'confidentiality' of its 70-cents-per-download wholesale price, the RIAA has now publicly filed papers in UMG v. Lindor in which it admits that the 70-cents-per-download price claimed by the defendant is 'in the range'.(pdf) From the article: 'The pricing data really may not be all that secret. Late in 2005, former New York Attorney General (and current Governor) Eliot Spitzer launched an investigation into price fixing by the record labels, alleging collusion between the major labels in their dealings with the online music industry. Gabriel believes that making the pricing information public would 'implicate [sic] very real antitrust concerns' as the labels are not supposed to share contract information with one another ... Beckerman argues in a letter to the judge that the only reason the labels want to keep this information confidential is to 'serve their strategic objectives for other cases,' which he says does not rise to the legal threshold necessary for a protective order. The proposed order would force the labels to turn over contracts with their 12 largest customers. Most details--such as the identities of the parties--would be kept confidential, but pricing information and volume would not.'"

NewYorkCountryLawyer asks: "In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has submitted an 'expert' report (pdf) and 26-page curriculum vitae (pdf), prepared by Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University who is the RIAA's expert witness in all of its cases against consumers, relating to alleged copyright infringement by means of a shared files folder on Kazaa, and supposed analysis of the hard drive of a computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. The RIAA's 'experts' have been shut down in the Netherlands and Canada, having been shown by Prof. Sips and Dr. Pouwelse of Delft University's Parallel and Distributed Systems research group (pdf) to have failed to do their homework, but are still operating in the USA. The materials were submitted in connection with a motion to compel Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away from her, to turn over his computer and music listening devices to the RIAA. Both Ms. Lindor's attorney (pdf) and Ms. Lindor's son's attorney (pdf) have objected to the introduction of these materials, but Dr. Jacobson's document production and deposition are scheduled for January and February, and we would love to get the tech community's ideas for questions to ask, and in general your reactions, thoughts, opinions, information, and any other input you can share with us. (In case you haven't guessed, we are the attorneys for Ms. Lindor.)"

NewYorkCountryLawyer asks: "In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has submitted an 'expert' report (pdf) and 26-page curriculum vitae (pdf), prepared by Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University who is the RIAA's expert witness in all of its cases against consumers, relating to alleged copyright infringement by means of a shared files folder on Kazaa, and supposed analysis of the hard drive of a computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. The RIAA's 'experts' have been shut down in the Netherlands and Canada, having been shown by Prof. Sips and Dr. Pouwelse of Delft University's Parallel and Distributed Systems research group (pdf) to have failed to do their homework, but are still operating in the USA. The materials were submitted in connection with a motion to compel Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away from her, to turn over his computer and music listening devices to the RIAA. Both Ms. Lindor's attorney (pdf) and Ms. Lindor's son's attorney (pdf) have objected to the introduction of these materials, but Dr. Jacobson's document production and deposition are scheduled for January and February, and we would love to get the tech community's ideas for questions to ask, and in general your reactions, thoughts, opinions, information, and any other input you can share with us. (In case you haven't guessed, we are the attorneys for Ms. Lindor.)"

NewYorkCountryLawyer asks: "In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has submitted an 'expert' report (pdf) and 26-page curriculum vitae (pdf), prepared by Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University who is the RIAA's expert witness in all of its cases against consumers, relating to alleged copyright infringement by means of a shared files folder on Kazaa, and supposed analysis of the hard drive of a computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. The RIAA's 'experts' have been shut down in the Netherlands and Canada, having been shown by Prof. Sips and Dr. Pouwelse of Delft University's Parallel and Distributed Systems research group (pdf) to have failed to do their homework, but are still operating in the USA. The materials were submitted in connection with a motion to compel Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away from her, to turn over his computer and music listening devices to the RIAA. Both Ms. Lindor's attorney (pdf) and Ms. Lindor's son's attorney (pdf) have objected to the introduction of these materials, but Dr. Jacobson's document production and deposition are scheduled for January and February, and we would love to get the tech community's ideas for questions to ask, and in general your reactions, thoughts, opinions, information, and any other input you can share with us. (In case you haven't guessed, we are the attorneys for Ms. Lindor.)"

NewYorkCountryLawyer asks: "In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has submitted an 'expert' report (pdf) and 26-page curriculum vitae (pdf), prepared by Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University who is the RIAA's expert witness in all of its cases against consumers, relating to alleged copyright infringement by means of a shared files folder on Kazaa, and supposed analysis of the hard drive of a computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. The RIAA's 'experts' have been shut down in the Netherlands and Canada, having been shown by Prof. Sips and Dr. Pouwelse of Delft University's Parallel and Distributed Systems research group (pdf) to have failed to do their homework, but are still operating in the USA. The materials were submitted in connection with a motion to compel Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away from her, to turn over his computer and music listening devices to the RIAA. Both Ms. Lindor's attorney (pdf) and Ms. Lindor's son's attorney (pdf) have objected to the introduction of these materials, but Dr. Jacobson's document production and deposition are scheduled for January and February, and we would love to get the tech community's ideas for questions to ask, and in general your reactions, thoughts, opinions, information, and any other input you can share with us. (In case you haven't guessed, we are the attorneys for Ms. Lindor.)"

NewYorkCountryLawyer asks: "In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has submitted an 'expert' report (pdf) and 26-page curriculum vitae (pdf), prepared by Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University who is the RIAA's expert witness in all of its cases against consumers, relating to alleged copyright infringement by means of a shared files folder on Kazaa, and supposed analysis of the hard drive of a computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. The RIAA's 'experts' have been shut down in the Netherlands and Canada, having been shown by Prof. Sips and Dr. Pouwelse of Delft University's Parallel and Distributed Systems research group (pdf) to have failed to do their homework, but are still operating in the USA. The materials were submitted in connection with a motion to compel Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away from her, to turn over his computer and music listening devices to the RIAA. Both Ms. Lindor's attorney (pdf) and Ms. Lindor's son's attorney (pdf) have objected to the introduction of these materials, but Dr. Jacobson's document production and deposition are scheduled for January and February, and we would love to get the tech community's ideas for questions to ask, and in general your reactions, thoughts, opinions, information, and any other input you can share with us. (In case you haven't guessed, we are the attorneys for Ms. Lindor.)"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor, Judge David G. Trager rejected Ms. Lindor's objection to a Magistrate's Report, in which Ms. Lindor complained that the Report could be read to imply that 'the mere presence of a shared files folder on an individual's computer would ... satisfy the requirements of 17 USC 106(3)', saying that the Report of Magistrate Robert M. Levy could not be so read, since '[t]he report and recommendation does not comment on whether or not the mere presence of a shared files folder satisfies 17 USC 106(3). Instead, it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing. [Report and Recommendation, at 5] ('At trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs.') (emphasis added)'"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor, Judge David G. Trager rejected Ms. Lindor's objection to a Magistrate's Report, in which Ms. Lindor complained that the Report could be read to imply that 'the mere presence of a shared files folder on an individual's computer would ... satisfy the requirements of 17 USC 106(3)', saying that the Report of Magistrate Robert M. Levy could not be so read, since '[t]he report and recommendation does not comment on whether or not the mere presence of a shared files folder satisfies 17 USC 106(3). Instead, it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing. [Report and Recommendation, at 5] ('At trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs.') (emphasis added)'"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor, Judge David G. Trager rejected Ms. Lindor's objection to a Magistrate's Report, in which Ms. Lindor complained that the Report could be read to imply that 'the mere presence of a shared files folder on an individual's computer would ... satisfy the requirements of 17 USC 106(3)', saying that the Report of Magistrate Robert M. Levy could not be so read, since '[t]he report and recommendation does not comment on whether or not the mere presence of a shared files folder satisfies 17 USC 106(3). Instead, it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing. [Report and Recommendation, at 5] ('At trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs.') (emphasis added)'"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL 'confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.' When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Chicago, Illinois, a Kazaa customer has filed a class action against Kazaa, Lewan v. Sharman, U.S.Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill 06-cv-6736. The lead plaintiff, Catherine Lewan, was a Kazaa customer who was sued by the RIAA for her use of Kazaa, and paid a settlement to the RIAA, and she sues on behalf of others in her position. In her complaint(pdf) she alleges, among other things, that Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads' (Complaint, par. 30); it designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so (Complaint, par. 36-37); and it surreptitiously installed 'spyware' on users' computers which made the shared files folder accessible to the Kazaa network even after the user had removed the Kazaa software from his or her computer (Complaint, par. 42-45)."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "To those who might think that I might be exaggerating when I describe the RIAA's litigation campaign as a 'reign of terror', how's this one: in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA not only subpoenaed the computer of Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away, but had their lawyer telephone the son's employer. See page 2, footnote 1." From Ray's comments: "You have a multi-billion dollar cartel suing unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations. And due to the adversary system of justice the RIAA will be successful in rewriting copyright law, if the world at large, and the technological community in particular, don't fight back and help these people fighting these fights."

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA seems to have a fear of counterclaims. In Elektra v. Schwartz, a case against a woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the RIAA is protesting on technical grounds Ms. Schwartz's inclusion of a counterclaim against them for attorneys fees. This counterclaim includes as an exhibit the ACLU, EFF, Public Citizen brief in Capitol v. Foster, which decried the RIAA's tactics as a 'driftnet.' In prior email correspondence between the lawyers Ms. Schwartz's attorney had offered to withdraw the counterclaim if the RIAA's lawyer could show him legal authority that its assertion was impermissible, saying 'I wouldn't want to get into motion practice over a mere formality.' The RIAA lawyer's response was 'I will let you know.'"