NewYorkCountryLawyer - Slashdot User

Submission + - No you can't claim "negligence" in a copyright case (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Monday July 09, 2012 @05:12PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the myriad BitTorrent downloading cases against individuals, one plaintiff's law firm thought they'd be clever and insert a "negligence" claim, saying that the defendant was negligent in failing to supervise his roommate's use of his WiFi access. Defendant moved to dismiss the negligence claim on the ground that it was preempted by the Copyright Act, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) agreeing with him. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan agreed, and dismissed the complaint, holding that the "negligence" claim was preempted by the Copyright Act."

Submission + - Forensic investigator makes claims about BitTorrent detection technology (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Saturday July 07, 2012 @01:34PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the many BitTorrent download cases brought by pornographic film makers, the plaintiff — faced with a motion to quash brought by a "John Doe" defendant — has filed its opposition papers. Interestingly, these included a declaration by its "forensic investigator" (PDF), employed by a German company, IPP, Limited, in which he makes claims about what his technology detects, and about how BitTorrent works, and attaches, as an exhibit, a "functional description" of his IPTracker software (PDF)."

Submission + - Is being in the same BitTorrent "swarm" equal to "interacting"? (blogspot.com) 1

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Friday June 29, 2012 @05:41PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In the new wave of bittorrent downloading cases, the plaintiffs' lawyers like to lump a number of "John Does" together in the same case in order to avoid filing fees ($350 a pop). Their excuse for 'joinder' is the allegation that the defendants 'interacted' with each other by reason of the fact that their torrents may have eminated from the same "swarm". In Malibu Media v. Does 1-5, when John Doe #4 indicated his intention to move for severance, the Court asked the lawyers to address the "swarm" issue in their papers. So when John Doe #4 filed his or her motion to quash, sever, and dismiss, he filed a detailed memorandum of law (PDF) analyzing the "swarm" theory in detail. What do you think?"

Submission + - EFF submits amicus brief: no 'negligence' in copyright case (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Wednesday June 27, 2012 @04:41PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the multitudinous bittorrent download cases now clogging the federal court system, Liberty Media Holdings v. Tabora, a plaintiff's lawyer cleverly invented a "negligence" claim, just in case he couldn't prevail on his weak copyright claims, arguing that defendant was 'negligent' in letting his roommate use his wireless internet service. Defendant's lawyers astutely moved to dismiss the negligence claim on the ground that it was preempted by the Copyright Act. The Electronic Frontier Foundation agreed with defendant and, with the Court's consent, filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) supporting defendant's motion."

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: What will the 8th Circuit do in Jammie Thomas case? (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Thursday June 14, 2012 @08:52AM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The RIAA doesn't really like free mp3 files floating around but here's one you can access legally — the audio file of the June 12, 2012 oral argument of the RIAA's appeal in Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset. At issue in this case are (a) the RIAA's "making available" theory and (b) the constitutionality of large statutory damages awards for download of an mp3 song file. The lower court rejected the making available theory, and reduced the jury's verdict to what the judge considered the maximum possible award of $2250 per file. I'm predicting the Court will affirm. After listening to the oral argument, what do you think?"

Submission + - Amanda Palmer raises $1M from fans for her album (blogspot.com) 1

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Tuesday May 29, 2012 @02:38PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The music industry will never be the same. Singer Amanda Palmer (@amandapalmer on Twitter), has just raised over $1,000,000 directly from her fans, through Twitter and other social media, to mix, promote, and distribute her new album. Armed only with a Kickstarter page, social media accounts, and a lot of friends, she has just liberated a lot of musicians from the tyranny of having to 'sign' with a big studio. I predict music business historians will be writing about this day for years to come. The "big 4" record companies just got a lot smaller."

Submission + - Judge orders Verizon subscriber identities sealed (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:07PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the mass "John Doe" cases based on single BitTorrent downloads of films, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a pro se litigant made a motion to quash the subpoena. The Court granted a stay of the subpoena, pending its decision on the motion to quash. Unfortunately for John Doe, Verizon had turned over its subscribers' identities 5 days BEFORE the response was due, thus possibly mooting both the stay and the motion to quash. Fortunately for John Doe, the Judge wasn't too happy about this, ordered the information sealed, directed plaintiff's lawyers to destroy any copies, and ruled that they can't use the information unless and until the Court denies the motion to quash."

Submission + - Verizon answers John Doe subpoena BEFORE it was due (blogspot.com) 1

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Thursday May 17, 2012 @12:00PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Verizon has just committed serious misconduct, by taking it upon itself to answer a subpoena 5 days before its answer was due. In a bittorrent movie downloading "John Doe" case, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, in Central Islip, New York, on Long Island, a John Doe defendant had, back in April, moved to quash the subpoena (PDF), which was returnable May 12th. The Court, on May 10th, issued an order staying enforcement of the subpoena, and directing Malibu's lawyers to notify Verizon immediately. Unfortunately, the stay order wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, since, it now turns out, Verizon had turned over the John Does' names on May 7th, a full 5 days prior the date its response was due. Apart from wondering what gave Verizon the right to deprive the Court of its authority to review a subpoena prior to its return date, one might also wonder why it took the plaintiff's lawyers 10 days to notify the Court of Verizon's misconduct."

Submission + - Tenenbaum to SCOTUS: let's get this debate rolling (techdirt.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Wednesday May 16, 2012 @03:06PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Joel Tenenbaum has filed a reply brief in support of his petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, trying to get the Court to take on the thorny issue of copyright statutory damages in the age of mp3 files and micropayments."

Submission + - Capitol Records Motion to Enjoin ReDigi Denied (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @03:57PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The motion by Capitol Records for a preliminary injunction against used digital music marketplace ReDigi has been denied. After hearing almost 2 hours of oral argument by attorneys for both sides, Judge Richard J. Sullivan ruled from the bench (PDF), holding that plaintiff had failed to show "irreparable harm"."

Submission + - Google asks court not to enjoin ReDigi (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @04:16PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Google has sought leave to submit an amicus curiae brief against Capitol Records' preliminary injunction motion in Capitol Records v. ReDigi. In their letter seeking pre-motion conference or permission to file (PDF) Google argued that "[t]he continued vitality of the cloud computing industry—which constituted an estimated $41 billion dollar global market in 2010—depends in large part on a few key legal principles that the preliminary injunction motion implicates." Among them, Google argued, is the fact that mp3 files either are not "material objects" and therefore not subject to the distribution right articulated in 17 USC 106(3) for "copies and phonorecords", or they are "material objects" and therefore subject to the "first sale" exception to the distribution right articulated in 17 USC 109, but they can't be — as Capitol Records contends — material objects under one and not the other."

Submission + - ReDigi defends used digital music market (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Friday January 27, 2012 @01:22PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "ReDigi has fired back, opposing Capitol Records's motion for a preliminary injunction. In his opposition declaration, ReDigi's CTO Larry Rudolph explains in detail (PDF) how the technology employed by ReDigi's used digital music marketplace effects transfer of a music file without copying, but by modifying the record locator in an 'atomic transaction', and how it verifies that only a single instance of a unique file can enter the ReDigi cloud system. ReDigi's opposition papers also point out plaintiff's own admissions that mp3 files are not "material objects" or "phonorecords" under the Copyright Act, and therefore not subject to the Copyright Act's distribution right, and defend ReDigi's used digital music marketplace and cloud storage system (PDF) on a number of grounds, including the First Sale exception to the distribution right applicable to a "particular" copy, the Essential Step exception to the distribution right applicable to a copy essential to the running of a computer program, and Fair Use space shifting."

Submission + - ReDigi answers Capitol Records (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Friday January 20, 2012 @12:15PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In Capitol Records's case against online digital used marketplace ReDigi, ReDigi has joined issue, filing its answer and requesting a conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion. The answer and summary judgment conference request explain how the ReDigi file transfer process works without copying the file, but by modifying the file pointer from the seller to the purchaser. They also explain why digital files are not subject to the Copyright Act's "distribution right", and why — even if they were — the "first sale" doctrine would be applicable to a transfer of a "particular" file."

Submission + - Capitol Records sues ReDigi (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Monday January 09, 2012 @08:39PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "On January 6th, Capitol Records filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, in federal court in Manhattan, against ReDigi Inc., a website which provides a used marketplace for digital music. The judges assigned to the case are U. S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan and U. S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. Attorneys for plaintiff are Cowan Leibowitz & Latman. Attorneys for defendant are Ray Beckerman, P.C. ("NewYorkCountryLawyer"). Defendant's time to respond to the complaint (PDF) expires January 27th."

Submission + - Actual damages for single download = single licens (blogspot.com) 1

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:36AM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In Real View v 20-20 Technologies, it was held that the actual copyright infringement damages for a single unauthorized download of a computer program was the lost license fee that would have been charged. The judge, in the District Court of Massachusetts, granted remittitur, reducing the jury's verdict from $1,370,590.00 to $4200 unless the plaintiff seeks a new trial. Something tells me the plaintiff will seek a new trial."

Slashdot Top Deals