Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/02/default-judgment-denied-in-atlantic-v.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:34:37+00:00

Document:
In Atlantic v. Brennan, a New Haven, Connecticut, case, the Court has denied the RIAA's application for default judgment, rejecting the RIAA's "making available" theory.
"“without actual distribution of copies.... there is no violation [of] the distribution right.” 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:9 (2007); see also id. N. 10 (collecting cases); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1162 (9th Cir. 2007)(affirming the district court’s finding “that distribution requires an ‘actual dissemination’ of a copy”)"
and because the balance of the complaint fails to satisfy the pleading standards of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, – U.S. –, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed.2d 929 (2007), and would not survive a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), agreeing with Interscope v. Rodriguez, 2007 WL 2408484 (S. D. Cal. August 17, 2007).
excessive, see UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Lindor, No. 05-1095, 2006 WL 3335048, at *3(E.D.N.Y.2006) (finding the defense non-frivolous); Zomba Enters., Inc. v.
dismiss copyright misuse counterclaim pending); Assessment Techs. of WI, LLC, v.
areas outside the monopoly .") (quotation marks omitted).
Hm, it seems slowly but for sure we can start a tally sheet comparing how often Riaa-Rich and his lying collegues use the "hundrets of courts have..."- Bovine feces versus the times when a smart, intelligent, due justice applying judge tells them to "take a hike" if they want to defraud them.
That's a good sign after all!
Is this a hint to the Defense?
This judge has clearly researched the issue in depth regarding decisions and issues in other, similar, boilerplate cases filed by these Plaintiffs. As such, she has to be the RIAA's worst nightmare.
According to the ruling, on March 22, 2007, David Brennan was served. This was apparently the wrong person, since on July 27, 2007, the defendant was changed to Christopher David Brennan. Three days later the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Is this another example of the RIAA suing the wrong person and then adding insult to injury by moving for default judgment only three days after suing Christopher Brennan?
"Is this another example of the RIAA suing the wrong person and then adding insult to injury by moving for default judgment only three days after suing Christopher Brennan?"
only "RIAA-Richard" knows that for sure, but I give it a 90% chance that this was the case here again.
Can someone explain the use of the term "colored/colorable" in the ruling, e.g.: "defendants have raised a host of colorable defenses"?
IANAL but http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8185.htm seems like an authoritative source on the term "colorable defense".
I rejected an anonymous post which gave an incorrect definition of what is meant by colorable.
Colorable basically means 'fairly arguable'.
Thanks for the definition of colorable. While I'm not the person originally asking the question (or having my post rejected), I was unable to find it in the usually reliable Groklaw.com Law Library link.
I gather that colorable defense is different than cognizable defense.
Cognizable means it is based on a legally sufficient theory.
Colorable means that (a) the defense is cognizable + (b) there are some facts tending to support it.

References: v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.