Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:26:46+00:00

Document:
In Elektra v. Santangelo II the defendants have filed their opposition to the RIAA's motion to dismiss counterclaims.
Copyright lawyer tells universities to resist "copyright bullies"
Wendy Seltzer, the founder of the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse and a former EFF staff attorney, gave a talk yesterday at Cornell (RealPlayer required) on "Protecting the University from Copyright Bullies." The bullies in question are the RIAA, and the issue is the recording industry's current campaign of both litigation and political pressure. Should universities assist the music industry in identifying the "pirates," or should they do everything in their power to resist?
The title of Seltzer's talk gives the game away. She believes that the mission of the university is to promote academic freedom, research, the testing of boundaries, and the learning of personal responsibility by students and researchers. An open network facilitates such things; one that is filtered and used to watch the activities of its users does not, in her view, produced the sorts of effects that universities want.
The campus has become the latest battleground in the war on file-sharing. The RIAA has taken its fight to the halls of Congress, where it recently failed to secure some legislation that would have required colleges and universities to implement content filtering solutions on their networks and would direct the government to produce a list of the top 25 infringing schools. "Why Congress should be getting into the business of naming names and pointing fingers is beyond me," Seltzer said.
Motley Fool: "RIAA Changes Gears Just Before Hitting Brick Wall"
[the "making available"]claim used to be a central pillar in the RIAA strategy, because it's fairly easy to show that some files were made available for download from a given IP address. Easy money if the lawsuit were to go anywhere.
But few of them ever did, and many suits have been thrown out because it isn't actually illegal to have a pile of files ready for others to download. Someone actually has to download them, which is a much harder point to prove. Sony BMG (NYSE: SNE), Warner Music (NYSE: WMG), Vivendi's (OTC BB: VIVEF.PK) Universal Music, and EMI (OTC BB: EMIPY.PK) can't lean on that crutch anymore.
This is a case in which the RIAA has no evidence that the defendant, Ms. Jammie Thomas, committed any copyright infringement. The RIAA has claimed that it will call Dr. Doug Jacobson and Cary Sherman as witnesses, as well as employees of the various record companies and of SafeNet/MediaSentry.
Ms. Thomas is represented by Brian Toder of Chestnut & Cambronne, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The RIAA is represented by Richard Gabriel and Timothy Reynolds of Holmes Roberts & Owen, located in Denver, Colorado.
This is believed to be the first jury trial since the RIAA began its litigation campaign more than 4 years ago.
It appears that our prediction that RIAA's "programatic" lawyers would abandon their novel "making available" theory has come true, as we have learned that new complaints which are being filed (a) replace the old boilerplate with new boilerplate culled from the RIAA's boilerplate interrogatory answers, and (b) have jettisoned "making available" altogether.
Meanwhile, the new complaint, which falsely alleges that the RIAA's investigator "detected an individual" downloading and uploading, should be met with dismissal motions as well.
See "Practice Tip: I recommend that defendants' lawyers consider making motions to dismiss complaint or motions for judgment on pleadings" and "Practice Tip: Dr. Doug Jacobson's Testimony Refutes the RIAA Averment that its Investigator "Detected an Individual"
We have been advised that the motion by University of South Florida students in Interscope v. Does 1-40, in Tampa, Florida, has been granted, based upon the RIAA's improper service of the subpoena.
The students are represented by Michael Wasylik of Ricardo & Wasylik, in Dade City, Florida.
Motley Fool article: "RIAA's Day in Court Nearly Over"
The music industry's lawsuit crusade against defenseless college students and housewives appears to have hit the skids lately. That might mean it's almost time for socially responsible investors to start looking at music publishers again, after their long industrywide hiatus from research lists.
Warner Music (NYSE: WMG), Sony (NYSE: SNE) BMG, Universal Music, and EMI (OTC BB: EMIPY.PK), the main movers behind the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), may have expected easy victories when they began their much-maligned campaign to sue alleged illegal music downloaders. But instead of settling their cases for a few thousand dollars each, many defendants decided to fight back -- with great success.
Some lawsuits have proven ridiculous from the outset, targeting computer-illiterates and dead people, or accusing grandmothers of downloading gangsta rap. Others have been dismissed for a lack of evidence against the purported file-sharers. Nearly every standard weapon in the recording industry's legal arsenal has been proven ineffectual at best, and unconstitutional at worst.
Tanya Andersen's Motion for Attorneys Fees Granted by Magistrate: "these plaintiffs ... should be deterred"
Whatever plaintiffs' reasons for the manner in which they have prosecuted this case, it does not appear to be justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law..... In this case, plaintiffs dismissed their claims before any rulings on any significant legal issues under the Copyright Act, or the factual issues associated with plaintiffs' claim. Choosing that course, on this record, should be deterred in light of its potential chilling effect on the public's access to creative works. 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. Plaintiffs exerted a significant amount of control over the course of discovery, repeatedly and successfully seeking the court's assistance through an unusually extended and contentious period of discovery disputes. Nonetheless, after ample opportunity to develop their claims, they dismissed them at the point they were required to produce evidence for the court's consideration of the merits..... this case provides too little assurance that a prosecuting party won't deem an infringement claim unsupportable until after the prevailing defendant has been forced to mount a considerable defense, and undergo all that entails, including the incurring of substantial attorney fees.
The parties will be afforded an opportunity to file objections to the Magistrate's report, after which time it will be submitted to the District Judge for finalization.
Celebrate the richness and vibrancy of the internet, and be ready to defend it from the likes of the RIAA.
Practice Tip: Dr. Doug Jacobson's Testimony Refutes the RIAA Averment that its Investigator "Detected an Individual"
For those of you who may have occasion to put the lie to the RIAA's false averment that its investigator "detected an individual", here* is a link to some excerpts from the February 23, 2007, testimony of the RIAA's expert witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson, in UMG v. Lindor, including the admission that the RIAA's "investigation" does NOT detect individuals.
Incredibly, the RIAA continues to make this misstatement. See, e.g., Amended Complaint in Interscope v. Rodriguez and transcript of June 29, 2007, conference in Warner v. Cassin.
The full deposition transcript of Dr. Jacobson's testimony is here. Links to the exhibits are here.
In UMG v. Del Cid, in Tampa, Florida, the defendant had interposed counterclaims, including claims for extortion and conspiracy. On August 16, 2007, she amended her counterclaims*.
The RIAA moved to dismiss all six counterclaims.
The Court has returned its decision, granting the motion as to one counterclaim, and denying it as to the other five, including the counterclaims for extortion and conspiracy.
At the outset the Court rejected entirely the RIAA's assertion of the Noerr-Pennington defense as a basis for dismissal, since the doctrine does not protect "sham litigation", and Ms. Del Cid had alleged that the infringement suits were "sham litigation".
The Court dismissed the third counterclaim, for copyright misuse, saying that it might constitute a defense, but did not qualify as a "cause of action".
-conspiracy to commit extortion, since defendant sufficiently alleged "a peculiar power of coercion possessed by Plaintiffs [by] virtue of their combination, which an individual alone would not possess".
extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951.
Ms. Del Cid is represented by Michael Wasylik of Ricardo & Wasylik, in Dade City, Florida.
The unlucky institutions on the receiving end of the 403 new letters include Arizona State University (35 pre-litigation settlement letters), Carnegie Mellon University (13), Cornell University (19), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (30), Michigan State University (16), North Dakota State University (17), Purdue University — West Lafayette and Calumet campuses (49), University of California — Santa Barbara (13), University of Connecticut (17), University of Maryland — College Park (23), University of Massachusetts — Amherst and Boston campuses (52), University of Nebraska — Lincoln (13), University of Pennsylvania (31), University of Pittsburgh (14), University of Wisconsin — Eau Claire, Madison, Milwaukee, Stevens Point, Stout and Whitewater campuses (62)."
In Elektra v. Schwartz, the Brooklyn case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis, the defendant is making a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief (technically a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)), based upon the recent decision in Interscope v. Rodriguez.
We have just learned of a fifth motion to vacate ex parte order being made, in the RIAA's campaign against college students, this one by a "John Doe" who is a student at North Carolina State University, in LaFace v. Does 1-38.
The student has until October 17th to file a motion to vacate.
He is being represented by attorney Steve Robertson, of Robertson, Medlin & Blocker, and is looking for other NC State "John Does" to join him and share expenses.
To the best of our knowledge, all 4 motions are presently pending.

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