Slashdot

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A California judge has dismissed an RIAA "John Doe" case as to 4 out of 5 of the "John Doe" defendants, and as to 6 of the record company plaintiffs. While other judges have pointed out the RIAA's impropriety in joining unrelated defendants, and one even suggested recently that the RIAA's lawyers should be sanctioned for it, this is the first instance of which we are aware in which the judge also seized upon the impropriety of joining the plaintiff record companies. Judge S. James Otero, sitting in the federal court in Los Angeles, is the same judge who, in an earlier decision in another RIAA case, expressed concern that "in these [RIAA] lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.""
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/02/california-judge-dismisses-riaa-case.html

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the motion by Boston University students, named as John Does, who have moved to quash an RIAA subpoena seeking their identities. In its 24-page brief (pdf), EFF argues, among other things, that the RIAA had failed to meet its burden of "produc[ing] sufficient evidence supporting each element of its cause of action", and that the RIAA's legal theory — that merely 'making files available' is a violation of the distribution right — is defective. The students themselves have filed a supplemental brief in connection with the motion which, among other things, notifies the Court that the Massachusetts state police have directed Media Sentry, the RIAA's unlicensed investigator, to cease and desist from conducting any more investigations in Massachusetts."
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/02/eff-files-amicus-brief-on-behalf-of.html

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Atlantic v. Andersen the Court has rejected the RIAA's objections to last September's decision of the Magistrate Judge granting Ms. Andersen's motion for attorneys fees against the RIAA record companies, in which the Magistrate held that "Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case." So now the only remaining decision on attorneys fees will be "how much?". And in a separate decision District Judge James A. Redden permitted Ms. Andersen to withdraw her counterclaims without prejudice so that she can pursue them in the class action she has brought against the record companies."
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/01/tanya-andersen-to-get-her-attorneys.html

In Atlantic v. Howell, the Phoenix, Arizona, case in which a defendant who has no legal representation has been battling the RIAA over its theory that merely 'making files available for distribution' is in and of itself a copyright infringement, Mr. Howell has received some help from an outside source. On the very last day allowed for the filing of supplemental briefs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief agreeing with Mr. Howell, and refuting the RIAA's motion for summary judgment. The brief (pdf), which is recommended reading for anyone who wants to know what US copyright law really says, points out that "contrary to Plaintiffs' arguments, an infringement of the distribution right requires the unauthorized, actual dissemination of copies of a copyrighted work." This is the same case in which the RIAA claimed that Mr. Howell's mp3's, copied from his cd's, were themselves unlawful.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/01/jeffrey-howell-is-not-alone-electronic.html

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A year and five months after examining the defendant's hard drive in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA's "expert" witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson, has issued a "supplemental report" which appears to contradict his earlier "reports" alluding to the hard drive inspection. In view of the superb job the Slashdot community and the Groklaw community did in helping first to prepare for, and then to vet, Jacobson's deposition, I humbly submit for your learned review the now three (3) versions of the "expert's" opinions based on the hard drive, for your analysis. As with almost all federal litigation documents nowadays, they are, unfortunately, in *pdf format: (a) December 19, 2006, declaration; (b) unsigned October 25, 2006, report, awaiting approval from RIAA lawyers; and (c) December 15, 2007, version. The initial observations of commentators on my blog are located here."
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-tries-to-submit-new-supplemental.html

"A student law clinic is about to cause a revolution" says p2pnet. For the first time in the history of the RIAA's ex parte litigation campaign against college students, a university law school's legal aid clinic has taken up the fight against the RIAA in defense of the university's college students. Student attorneys at the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, under the supervision of law school prof Deirdre M. Smith, have moved to dismiss the RIAA's complaint in a Portland, Maine, case, Arista v. Does 1-27, on behalf of 2 University of Maine undergrads. Their recently filed reply brief (pdf) points to the US Supreme Court decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, and the subsequent California decision following Twombly, Interscope v. Rodriguez, which dismissed the RIAA's "making available" complaint as mere "conclusory", "boilerplate" "speculation". The 2 students represented by Cumberland join the 8 students represented by a prominent Portland law firm, bringing to 10 the number of University of Maine students fighting back in this case.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/student-attorneys-join-fight-against.html

Turning the tables on the RIAA's attempt to subpoena information from the University of Oregon about the identities of the university students, the Attorney General has now filed additional papers requesting permission from the Court to conduct immediate discovery into the RIAA's 'data mining' techniques, such as the use of unlicensed investigators, the turning over of subpoenaed information to collection agencies, the obtaining of personal information from computers. The AG pointed out (pdf) that "Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits.....their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery...... and have dropped cases, such as their case against Tanya Andersen, in which their methods and practices have been challenged through counterclaims...... While the University is not a party to the case, Plaintiffs' subpoena affects the university's rights and obligations. Plaintiffs may be spying on students who use the University's computer system and may be accessing much more than IP addresses." As one commentator succinctly put it, "They'll be going bananas in RIAA land" after reading this filing.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's lawyers are a bit jumpy these days since their standard "making available" boilerplate was rejected by the Court in Interscope v. Rodriguez. But I still never expected, when I initiated a dismissal motion in Elektra v. Schwartz, that they would be reaching out to me , of all people, for help. But so they did, asking me "in the interest of efficiency... what precisely Defendant contends is lacking from Plaintiffs' Complaint for Defendant to consider it sufficient. Perhaps Plaintiffs may be able to satisfy these alleged deficiencies and spare both parties additional and unnecessary motions practice." Unfortunately my response was not very helpful; I couldn't think of anything better than to say, more or less, that "Plaintiffs have no case whatsoever against Ms. Schwartz, and their case against her was frivolous in its inception. Accordingly, there are no facts they can allege that will satisfy the plausibility standard." On reflection, I'm feeling kind of guilty that I didn't give them a more creative, and helpful answer, and I thought to turn to my friends at Slashdot, who are (a) almost always helpful, and (b) always creative. What would you have said?"

perreira writes "Flickr is now censoring all pictures which are marked as "moderate" or "restricted" for users in Germany, Singapore and elsewhere. The censorship in germany might have been caused by pictures appearing on flickr containing Nazi-symbols which are illegal in germany. But the filter is going too far and censoring stuff which is perfectly legal to view. Discussion is happening here: — http://www.flickr.com/groups/404938@N23/discuss/72 157600347681500/ — http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/42597/"
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/91085