Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:13:01+00:00

Document:
In a recent case in the Southern District of New York, Yurman Studio, Inc. v. Castaneda, 07 Civ. 1241 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y. November 19, 2008), District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin reminds us of the well settled principle that "At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered' [citing RSO Records v. Peri, 596 F.Supp. 849,862 (SDNY 1984); New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 161 F.Supp.2d 293,303 (SDNY 2001); 4 Nimmer Sec. 14.04[E] at 14-90(2005)] and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'"
The damages disproportion and economic reality disconnect in RIAA cases were recognized in the September 24, 2008, dictum of District Judge Michael J. Davis, set forth at pages 40-43 of the Court's decision (pdf) in Capitol v. Thomas, where Judge Davis observed that the statutory damages awarded were "wholly disproportionate", and urged Congressional action to prevent a recurrence. While we agree that Congressional action would be nice, we think it is clear that copyright jurisprudence itself prevents the outlandish damage awards sought by the RIAA.
(d) as an alternative to (c), the maximum award of statutory damages should be nine (9) times the actual damages proved by plaintiffs to have been sustained, which would limit recovery to a range of from zero to $3.15 per song file (typically, lost profits are approximately 35 cents per song file).
The Courts should recognize that any other interpretation of the Copyright Act would lead to an inescapable conclusion that the statute is unconstitutional.
In a Cleveland, Ohio, case targeting students at Case Western Reserve University, Arista Records v. Does 1-11, the District Court has granted the defendant John Doe #9's motion for severance, and severed as to Doe #9 and all other defendants except John Doe #1.
District Judge Kathleen O'Malley rejected the RIAA's argument that severance was premature, agreed with the authorities that had granted severance, and dismissed the authorities cited by the RIAA as providing insufficient analysis, explanation, or rationale.
In Fonovisa, Inc. v. Does 1-9, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, case targeting Carnegie Mellon students, in which a student -- appearing pro se -- succeeded in challenging the misjoinder of John Does, but failed to get dismissal of the complaint or quashing of the subpoena, the Magistrate Judge's ruling has now been affirmed by the District Court Judge.
The appeal has been pending for approximately one year.
In Atlantic Recording v. Raleigh, a case pending in St. Louis, Missouri, the RIAA has made a motion to compel discovery.
"The RIAA’s prosecution of copyright law is unconstitutional"
For Jon's article go here.
In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, the case targeting students at SUNY Albany, defendant's lawyer advised the Court of the recent ruling in a Boston University case, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4. In the Albany case, defendants' motion to quash the subpoena is pending.
Warner Bros. Records v. Cassin, the Westchester case challenging the "making available" theory, has been settled. A notice of dismissal without prejudice of the 2nd phase of that case, the case against the "John Does", was filed today.
The Court treats Boston University's 9/23/08 Letter as a Motion to Quash and GRANTS the motion with respect to Doe Defendants # 8, 9, and 14. The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty. As a result, the Court finds that compliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery. Accordingly, under the test laid out in its 3/31/08 Order, the Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14.
(emphasis supplied) We have been saying this for years. It is refreshing to see it finally recognized in a decision. Interestingly, it occurred in an undefended case, where no "John Doe" appeared. The Court, however, deemed the University's letter explaining the identification problem a motion to quash, and granted it.
The reason we believe this little, 4-sentence, decision is so important is that if the principle it enunciates is followed consistently by Judge Gertner and by other judges, very few, if any, RIAA subpoenas will withstand a motion to quash going forward. E.g., if this principle had been followed in Arista Records v. Does 1-17 targeting University of Oregon students, or in LaFace Records v. Does 1-14 targeting University of Arizona students, in both of which the university's plea fell on deaf ears, the respective subpoenas would have been quashed as to all, or at least most, of the students.
Accordingly, I urge every practitioner who is consulted by a John Doe defendant, and is contemplating a motion to vacate the ex parte discovery order and quash the subpoena issued under it -- whether through a college or university or through a commercial internet service provider -- to give careful consideration to the November 24, 2008, decision in London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4.
And I urge every college and university counsel, and internet service providers' counsel, to consult with your technical staff and recognize that Judge Gertner's decision implies a responsibility on your part, on behalf of your students and subscribers, to advise the respective courts from which the subpoenas have been issued, before making disclosure to the RIAA, as to which, if any, "alleged infringers" can be identified "with a reasonable degree of technical certainty", as Boston University did, so that the Court can pass upon the question .
In Capitol Records v. Thomas, the RIAA has filed a reply memorandum in further support of its motion for permission to appeal from the Court's September 24, 2008 decision.
Two Brooklyn cases against residents of Queens, Elektra Entertainment Group v. Torres and Maverick Recording v. Chowdhury, have been settled.
Just thought some of you might like seeing email strings between Prof. Nesson and Timothy Reynolds in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum... so here's one.
I guess you'll be able to find more, and other interesting tidbits about the Tenenbaum case, by following Prof. Nesson's blog, "eon".
District Judge Herman J. Weber has granted the defendant's request for oral argument of the pending motions in Elektra Entertainment Group v. Licata, a Cincinnati "throwing in the towel" case.
This is the case in which (a) the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and for attorneys fees, (b) the RIAA moved to dismiss its own complaint "without prejudice", and (c) the Magistrate Judge denied defendant's motions, and granted the RIAA's motion.
Defendant has filed papers objecting to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, and the matter is now before Judge Weber.

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