Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:13:35+00:00

Document:
Shaneasia Morgan, sued in Pensacola, Florida, is fighting back, in Virgin v. Morgan. She has filed an answer denying the RIAA's charges, and denying that her non-commercial actions were a copyright infringement. Her answer explains that the type of file sharing of which she is accused would be protected as a fair use. In addition she seeks an award of attorneys fees against the plaintiffs.
Defendant Morgan lacks technical understanding of the filesharing concept as it has come to be employed on the Internet. Her understanding is that website owners and operators are responsible for determining the intellectual property rights of the content they make available and that she is not required to become a technical expert nor an expert in intellectual property rights in order to browse the Internet without fear of financial disaster from copyright infringement liability. If a service browsed on the Internet has caused her computer to download software and thereby created a shared folder on her computer, it was without her informed knowledge or understanding.
Ms. Morgan is represented by George J. Little, a veteran trial lawyer and internet expert, working out of Marianna, Florida.
The RIAA opposed it unless they too could have an extension of the discovery cutoff to enable them to subpoena the computers of Ms. Lindor's son and nephew.
The judge's ruling grants Ms. Lindor's request, but (a) also grants the RIAA an extension, and (b) leaves the close of discovery open ended at this point. The judge's ruling does not decide whether or not the RIAA's argument, that it should be entitled to subpoena the computers of Ms. Lindor's son and nephew, neither of whom reside with her, has merit.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Ms. Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, pending 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.
An elderly survivor of Hurricane Rita, Ms. Rhonda Crain, has been sued by the RIAA in Beaumont, Texas, in SONY v. Crain. Ms. Crain and her husband were displaced by the hurricane.
Ms. Crain had never heard of the songs she’s accused of downloading and sharing, much less downloaded them, she’d never heard of “file sharing” before, and she didn’t even know that kind of thing was possible before getting sued for allegedly doing it.
She is fighting back and has asserted a counterclaim against the plaintiffs, saying that the RIAA's actions "amount to extortion, reciting a litany of other similar cases brought by the RIAA.
Ms. Crain has also asserted the defense, first raised in Arista v. Greubel, that the plaintiffs' have been fully compensated by the $115 million settlement they received from Kazaa.
Ms. Crain is represented by John Stoneham in the Beaumont, Texas, office of Lone Star Legal Aid.
The defendants are represented by Jordan Glass of Valhalla, New York.
We will be referring to the case as "Elektra v. Santangelo II".
Judge Robinson has fixed February 2, 2007, as the date of the pre-motion conference for the contemplated dismissal motion in Warner v. Cassin.
It should be noted that the litigation landscape has changed somewhat since those letters were written. It is still true that the motion in Elektra v. Barker, the only dismissal motion of which we are aware in the Southern District other than Elektra v. Santangelo, is still pending; but by now there have been a total of five other decisions denying motions to dismiss, one in Brooklyn, one in Arizona, and three in Texas. However, none of the five decisions held that merely 'making available' is a copyright infringement; all deferred ruling on that issue until a later stage of the case.
The Barker case, in which several amicus curiae briefs, and a 'statement of interest' by the Justice Department, have been submitted, is pending before Judge Kenneth Karas, in Manhattan.
Ms. Lindor's son is represented by Richard A. Altman, Esq., of Manhattan, one of the first lawyers to take on the RIAA's ex parte "John Doe" subpoena process, back in 2004, in Elektra v. Does 1-9.
p2pnet.net News:- Big Four Organized Music member Vivendi Universal is suing Rupert Murdoch's MySpace.com for, you guessed, it, copyright infringement, calling the site a "vast virtual warehouse" of pirated works.
It's already suing Grouper, owned by one of its Big Four colleagues, Sony, as well as Bolt, another video site.
And it's all about the online advertising dollar - your advertising dollar.
Vivendi claims "no intellectual property is safe" from the alleged copyright infringement, even unreleased albums, continues The Los Angeles Times.
The caption is UMG Recordings Inc. v. MySpace Inc., 06-07361, U.S. District Court, Central District of California.
We are pleased to report that one of the law review articles referred to by Judge Trager in his decision in UMG v. Lindor, regarding the constitutionality of the RIAA's $750-per-song damages theory, is now available online.
-A first affirmative defense which alleges that if defendant were liable, Kazaa would be jointly and severally liable along with him, and that the $115,000,000 settlement which the RIAA received from Kazaa constitutes recovery in full.
-A third affirmative defense that the $750-per-song damages theory is unconstitutional, and that recovery should be limited to 4 times the value of each download, or $2.80 each.
Mr. Greubel is represented by Charles Lee Mudd, Jr., of Chicago, Illinois, and John G. Browning of Dallas, Texas.
"p2pnet.net special:- When, last February, independent, one-man law office Jordan Glass was officially accepted into the New York court system to defend Big Four Organized Music victim Patti Santangelo, he guaranteed he'd stay on the case to the end.
"He's kept his promise, and then some because now, as well as representing Patti, he's also acting for two of her children, Michelle and Robert, who've also become Big Four targets.
"What does this mean to you? - p2pnet asked Glass shortly after he took on his two newest clients.
"This is both a privilege and an even greater responsibility than representing Patti alone, not because of the allegations, but because of their ages. Michelle was only 16-17 years old when the events were alleged to have taken place; Bobby was only 12-13 years old. Even Matthew Seckler, the identified family friend in the matter, was only 14-15 years old.
"What kind of country do you want to live in?"
"Law is the main public mechanism by which we answer that question. But what about laws that don't work as intended, that trap the unwary or create an unintended or inappropriate burden?
"This case is about such laws.
"At issue is much more than whether Patti or her children, or tens of thousands of others did or did not violate copyright laws. At issue is the fundamental question, "What kind of country do you want to live in?""
A new RIAA case, commenced in Pensacola, in the Florida panhandle, is about to become contested: Virgin Records v. Shaneasia Morgan.
Plaintiffs have filed their reply papers in support of their motion for a protective order declaring their agreements with MediaSentry to be privileged. In them they claim that MediaSentry is not an expert since it did no more than any other individual on Kazaa could have done.
In UMG v. Lindor, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy has denied Ms. Lindor's October 23, 2006, motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the RIAA's failure to deliver the hard drive analysis report as promised. The judge also admonished the lawyers to "exercise civility in their dealings with each other .... and restraint in seeking relief from the Court."
We have not yet confirmed that the case has actually been filed. When we do, we will post here the applicable documents. We are initiating coverage of this case as "Elektra v. Santangelo II".
We have learned that James O'Neil, the former Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island, is acting as the local lawyer for the RIAA in Rhode Island. On behalf of the RIAA, he has recently sued a parent who has never done any file sharing or downloading, in Elektra v. Werry. The parent is presently representing himself.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.