Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:37:01+00:00

Document:
William Patry, author of the treatise Patry on Copyright, has weighed in with a blog post in which he praises Judge Wake's recent decision in Atlantic v. Howell, but criticizes the portion of the decision which holds that MediaSentry was not authorized to download the 12 copies, and that MediaSentry's own downloads could constitute a "distribution" even though there was no sale or other transfer of ownership, there was no license, lease, or lending, and there was no dissemination to the public, all of which are requirements for a distribution under the Copyright Act.
The RIAA's copyright lawsuit against Project Playlist, Atlantic v. Project Playlist, was filed in Manhattan on April 28th. A copy of the complaint is now available online.
RIAA terms Judge Wake's decision "strange" and "outside of mainstream"
"This is a strange decision that is outside of the mainstream and inconsistent with countless court rulings on these issues," RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth told Ars. "We are currently considering all options going forward."
In Atlantic v. Howell, the Phoenix, Arizona, case in which the defendant has been representing himself, the Court has denied the RIAA's summary judgment motion.
-held the RIAA's evidence inconclusive as to whether the defendant could be held liable under a "secondary liability" theory.
This is the Arizona case in which (a) the Court initially ruled in the RIAA's favor, (b) after receiving a "reconsideration" motion from the self-represented defendant, the Court recalled and vacated its earlier decision, (c) the Court asked for supplemental briefs, responding to -- among other things -- the question of whether Mr. Howell's mp3 files, copied from his cd's, were "unlawful", and the RIAA responded "yes", (d) the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief on Mr. Howell's behalf, and (e) Fred Von Lohmann of the EFF participated in the oral argument.
In Arista v. Does 1-9, the Columbus, Ohio, case targeting Ohio State University students, the students have made a motion for reconsideration of the Court's initial decision denying their motion to quash, and for a stay.
In the Cincinnati case, Elektra v. Licata, where the RIAA -- after forcing the defendant's attorney to put in 140 hours of work on the case -- is now seeking to dismiss "without prejudice", the defendant is asking the Court to provide that (a) the dismissal will be "with prejudice" and (b) defendant will be reimbursed for his attorneys fees.
In Atlantic v. Howell, Mr. Howell did not oppose the RIAA's request for an examination of Mr. Howell's hard drive and cd's. The Court granted the unopposed motion, and scheduled a final pretrial conference for August 25th.
We are not aware of any ruling on the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion.
The RIAA has now filed its complete amended complaint (the previous version omitted page 3) in Atlantic v. Brennan, the case in which District Judge Janet Bond Arterton had ruled the initial complaint to be insufficient.
In Arista v. Does 1-19, the case targeting George Washington University students, the judge has denied the defendants' motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the Court's ex parte discovery order.
Interesting article on Slashdot raises the question: "Who runs the RIAA's settlement web site?"
In Arista v. Does 1-21, targeting Boston University students, the students have filed a reply memorandum in further support of their motion to strike all of the Carlos Linares declarations.

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