Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1796420/EFF-20040323-Virgin-Complaint
Timestamp: 2016-10-24 08:07:12
Document Index: 425691672

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 1338', '§ 504', '§ 505', '§ 502', '§ 504', 'art 2']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION VIRG1N RECORDS AMERICA, 1NC., a California corporation; MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P., a California limitedpartnership; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware corporation; ARISTA RECORDS, 1NC., a Delaware corporation; and WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, aver as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright
infringement under the copyright laws of the United States (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.).
This Court has jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(federal question); and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (copyright).
1400(a). Although the true identity of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, on information and belief, Defendant may be found in this District and/or a substantial part of the acts of infringement complained of herein occurred in this District. On information and belief, personal jurisdiction in this District is proper because Defendant, without consent or permission of the copyright owner, disseminated over the Internet copyrighted works owned and/or controlled by the Plaintiffs. On information and belief, such illegal dissemination occurred in every jurisdiction in the United States, including this one. In addition, Defendant uses an online service provider found in this District to access the Internet, which facilitated Defendant's infringing activities.
Plaintiff Virgin Records America, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
Plaintiff Motown Record Company, L.P. is a limited partnership duly organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
PlaintiffAtlantic
Recording Corporation is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment Inc. is a corporation duly organized and
Plaintiff Arista Records, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State &New York.
Plaintiff Warner Bros. Records Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State of California.
The true name and capacity of the Defendant is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
Defendant is known to Plaintiffs only by the Internet Protocol ("IP') address assigned to Defendant by his or her online service provider on the date and time at which the infringing activity of Defendant was observed. See Exhibit A. Plaintiffs believe that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification of Defendant's true name.
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS
Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation contained
in each paragraph above.
Plaintiffs are, and at all relevant times have been, the copyright owners or
licensees of exclusive rights under United States copyright law with respect to certain copyrighted sound recordings, including, but not limited to, all of the copyrighted sound recordings on Exhibit A to this Complaint (collectively, these copyrighted sound recordings shall be identified as the "Copyrighted Recordings"). Each of the Copyrighted Recordings is the subject of a valid Certificate of Copyright Registration issued by the Register of Copyrights to each Plaintiff as specified on Exhibit A.
Among the exclusive rights granted to each Plaintiff under the Copyright Act are
the exclusive rights to reproduce the Copyrighted Recordings and to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or
consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download, distribute to the public, and/or make available for distribution to others, certain of the Copyrighted Recordings. Exhibit A is a list of copyrighted recordings that Defendant has, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, downloaded, distributed to the public, and/or
and/or made available for distribution to others. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendant's actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights and/or exclusive rights under copyright. (In addition to the sound recordings listed for Defendant on Exhibit A, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant has, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, downloaded, distributed to the public, and/or made available for distribution to others additional sound recordings owned by or exclusively licensed to the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' affiliate record labels.)
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the foregoing acts of infringement have
been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs.
As a result of Defendant's infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights and exclusive
rights under copyright, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) against Defendant for each infringement by the Defendant of each copyrighted recording. Plaintiffs further are entitled to their attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
The conduct of Defendant is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this
Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 503, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from further infringing Plaintiffs' copyrights, and ordering that Defendant destroy all copies of copyrighted sound recordings made in violation of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights.
For an injunction providing:
"Defendant shall be and hereby is enjoined from directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiffs' rights under federal or state law in the
Copyrighted Recordings and any sound recording, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or controlled by Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate record label of Plaintiffs)
("Plaintiffs' Recordings"), including without limitation by using the Internet or any online media distribution system to reproduce (i.e., download) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, to distribute (i.e., upload) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, or to make any of Plaintiffs'
Recordings available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs. Defendant also shall destroy all copies of Plaintiffs' Recordings that Defendant has downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without Plaintiffs' authorization and shall destroy all copies of those
downloaded recordings transferred onto any physical medium or device in Defendant's possession, custody, or control."
For statutory damages for each infringement of each Copyrighted
Recording pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504.
For Plaintiffs' costs in this action.
For Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein.
Thom(r_'J. Perrelli (#12462) Jared O. Freedman James A. Trilling JENNER & BLOCK LLP 601 13th Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 639-6000 (202) 639-6066 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Exhibit Doe #1 (131.118.59.169
A 21:55:15 (EST))
COPYRIGHT OWNER Warner Bros. Records Inc. Virgin Records America, Inc. Motown Record Company, L.P. Atlantic Recording Corporation Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Virgin Records America, Inc. Arista Records, Inc. Virgin Records America, Inc.
Motownphiny
261-953
That's The Way Love Goes ATLiens Steal My Kisses
174-392
Outkast Ben Harper
Atliens Burn To Shine
233-296 273-400
EFF: 20040323 Virgin ComplaintUploaded by EFFCopyrightPlaintiffDefendantCorporationCopyright Infringement7 viewsDownloadEmbedSee MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to EFF: 20040323 Virgin ComplaintStrick Case, Part 2Music Filesharing Generic Lawsuit TemplateDallas Buyers Club ComplaintHotfile Comb0bf0282 91f7 44e3 88de 9b282bfbaa8eSilas Beach Gatewood III v. Frenchy's - FishBone trademark complaint.pdfBell v. Proact Search LLC ComplaintPearson Education v. HotfileDBC01144 Complaint11-10977-JLTAF Holdings LLC v. Doe, Amended ComplaintLawsuit against Primo's Tex-Mex GrilleTex ComplaintComplaintPla.1.ComplaintCP Productions, Inc. v. David Green, Jr. Complaint 1:12-cv-03557TCYK Copyright Complaint 101113AF Holdings v LiberatoreComplaint.pdfPrenda Law CaseOpenmind ComplaintMasterfile vs Obstetrics, Gynecology, InfertilitySunlust Pictures LLC v. Andrew Burdziak ComplaintAF Holdings v. Edward HuynhrganandEFFPrenda Law CasePrenda Law CaseDMCA Counter-Notification TemplateDennis Morris v. Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery - copyright complaint.pdf10 10 12 Myvidster ComplaintBooks similar to EFF: 20040323 Virgin ComplaintHollywood's Copyright WarsArguments before the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, on H. R. 11943, to Amend Title 60, Chapter 3, of the Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to Copyrights
May 2, 1906.Sinking the Jolly RogerSonia SotomayorThurgood MarshallClaudette ColvinThe Law of Pre-Trial Criminal Procedure in NamibiaSwing DanceLives Lost and EndangeredA Discrete Inquiries NovelIn JusticeSpecial Rules of Procedure Governing Philippine Shari'a Courts Annotated2016 Commercial & Industrial Common Interest Development ActMadison's MusicProcedure in the Law of Succession in KenyaGolden Lies海島算經BirminghamMarch On WashingtonReport of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.Restoring the Lost ConstitutionBooks about CopyrightThe Necessity of Atheism恨海TabbyThe Unforseen Return三略顔氏家訓 — Volume 07Aunt DeborahVapaaviikolla
1892Documents about CopyrightLove That DogClassroom GuideIntroducing the Open Banking StandardEmployee ManualLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdfSample Producer Contract (Royalty-Bearing Work for Hire)Sample Producer Contract (Royalty-Bearing, Collaborative Agreement)High School Physics Grade 10-12Design Business and EthicsHigh School Mathematics Grade 10-12JRC79605Employee HandbookStandard Form of Agreement for Design ServicesHigh School Chemistry Grade 10-12Hate That Cat by Sharon CreechSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoStories of IdentityGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Using Music and Songs to Teach English Speaking SkillsK-1 Operating ManualHaloSongs Inc v SheeranBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...Pocket ConstitutionStarsLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlLSE MPP Policy Brief 9 Copyright and CreationAutoCAD 3D Course ManualCatholic EssentialsThe Conservative Nanny StateStatutory Construction and InterpretationDocuments about PlaintiffAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Doe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/16Tiffany Doe DeclarationiPhone Touch Screen - Amended Complaint [CONFORMED COPY]2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiSaudi LawsuitPennie v. Soros et al Amended Complaint179125570172Mejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfVW Diesel case20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintAmended Levaquin complaint Lawsuit against Hillary ClintonPalantir LawsuitRyan Bundy Mistrial MotionSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPokemon Go lawsuitMumford Emergency MotionGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarFresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Ghomeshi rulingHaloSongs Inc v SheeranClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmBooks about DefendantThe Texas Jury RulesThe FormulaJury DoodyThe VerdictOscar Pistorius The VerdictLaw, Life and LaughterMurder in MarpleDocuments about DefendantJane Doe Declaration as FiledPennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintBundy wants govt to ID informants179125570172Mejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdf09-20-2016 ECF 1305 USA v SHAWNA COX - Notice That the U.S. Attorneys' Office Has Been Caught Coaching WitnessesUS v. Deric Lostutter20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintAmended Levaquin complaint Lawsuit against Hillary ClintonHobos Proffer Palantir LawsuitRyan Bundy Mistrial MotionSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPokemon Go lawsuitMumford Emergency MotionGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtRoss Ulbricht Sentencing Benzies v RockstarGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0HaloSongs Inc v SheeranClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmBooks about CorporationPublic CapitalismEradicating EcocideBig Business, Poor PeoplesFIX YOUR CORPORATION Before All HELL Breaks LooseAn Accomplished Woman and a News Corporation:Common Sense About the Roberts' Court MonsterAmerica 2.0 Inc.United States Human ExpeditionThe Shadow of the MoonScheraltScheraltLiterature IncorporatedSummaryThe Corporate CommonwealthThe Corporation That Changed the WorldCase Studies on Corporations and Global Health GovernanceEmployee Ownership Through ESOPSDocuments about Corporation12727757_45.20.2016 Board Deck v5 (1)Office Management Course ManualThe Pro-Manager Agreement (With Pro-Artist Commentary)SEC v. CoopermanBasic Everyday Journal EntriesRewriting the Rules of the American EconomyDesign Business and EthicsThe Pro-Artist Management AgreementThe Definitive Case for Why Hillary Clinton is the Wrong Choice (And Bernie is the Right One)Chevron Pulse ReportBlockchain TechnologyFCC FOIA2015 Edelman Trust BarometerZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoAccount ClassificationExecutive SummaryGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Read omnibus spending bill textHaloSongs Inc v SheeranWorld Economic Forum - Annual Report 1998/1999Linx Bracelet v. Origami OwlList of participants at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting2016 Democratic Party Platform DraftThe Conservative Nanny StateESM PoliciesSWARM Working Paper, Distributed Networks and the LawTrek Bikes' lawsuit vs. cyclist Greg LemondInside Job - The Documentary That Cost $20,000,000,000,000 to ProduceBooks about Copyright InfringementWheel of TimeThe LochReclaiming Fair UseFreeloadingSelf-Publisher's Legal HandbookThe Piracy CrusadeStainless Steel RatSoftware Piracy ExposedPirate TrailsSingking the Jolly RogerSinking the Jolly RogerInternet Book Piracy