Judge David G. Larimer, presiding in Rochester, New York, has denied an RIAA application for default judgment on the ground that the RIAA's evidence was insufficient, in that it contained no details of actual downloads or distributions, and no sufficient evidence that defendant was in fact Kazaa user "heavyjeffmc@KaZaA". The decision (pdf) concluded that "there are significant issues of fact regarding the identification of the defendant from his alleged "online media distribution system" username". (In case you're unfamiliar with the term "online media distribution system", that's because it is a term the RIAA coined 4 years ago to describe p2p file sharing accounts in its lawsuits; the term is not known to have been used by anyone else anywhere else.) In August a similar RIAA default judgment motion was denied on the ground that the pleadings failed to allege sufficient factual details supporting a claim of copyright infringement, in a San Diego, California, case, Interscope v. Rodriguez.

The Slashdot and Groklaw communities were so helpful in preparing for the deposition of the RIAA's "expert" witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson, we thought we'd come back and ask for your thoughts on what documents and/or data to request from the RIAA's 'investigator', MediaSentry, Inc. The documents we have so far are just printouts, which were used at Dr. Jacobson's deposition, specifically exhibits 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Of course we have some ideas of our own about what to demand, but we want to leave no stone unturned. For the technical minded among you, this is your chance to be a part of bringing the RIAA's litigation campaign down.

The Interscope v. Rodriguez decision dismissing the RIAA's boilerplate complaint, and the $9250-per-song-file verdict in Capitol v. Thomas, have inspired some new dismissal motions in RIAA cases. In Charleston, South Carolina, Catherine Njuguna has moved to dismiss on the basis of the legal insufficiency of the RIAA's complaint and on constitutional grounds due to the excessive damages sought by the RIAA, while in Brooklyn, New York, MS victim Rae J Schwartz has moved to dismiss based solely on the complaint's failure to state a claim under Rodriguez and the Supreme Court decision, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly.

Jammie Thomas has filed a motion to set aside the $222,000 verdict obtained against her by the RIAA, based on allegations she infringed $23.76 worth of song files. Her motion papers (pdf) argue that the verdict is excessive and in violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, and should be reduced to $150 or less, or a new trial ordered. (See, e.g. UMG v. Lindor). It has been reported that the RIAA issued a statement that "Thomas [is] not taking responsibility for her actions, and .... they want to resolve the case in a "fair and reasonable" fashion. It is unfortunate that the defendant continues to avoid responsibility for her actions....". In my experience that is RIAA-speak for "after the verdict we have tried to make a settlement with her, but she wouldn't meet our terms".

A federal judge in Tampa, Florida, has ruled that an RIAA defendant's counterclaim against the record companies for conspiracy to use unlicensed investigators, access private computer records without permission, and commit extortion, may move forward. The Court also sustained claims for violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as a claim under Florida law for deceptive and unfair trade practices. The decision (pdf) by Judge Richard A. Lazzara in UMG v. DelCid rejected, in its entirety, the RIAA's assertion of "Noerr Pennington" immunity, since that defense does not apply to "sham litigations", and Ms. Del Cid alleges that the RIAA's cases are "sham".

Several weeks ago it was discovered that a California federal judge, in rejecting an RIAA application for default judgment, had dismissed the RIAA's standard complaint for failure to state a claim, calling it "conclusory" "boilerplate" "speculation" in Interscope v. Rodriguez. In the wake of that decision, a Queens, New York, woman being sued in Brooklyn federal court, Rae J Schwartz, has told the Court that she is making a motion to dismiss the complaint in her case, Elektra v. Schwartz. This is the first post-Interscope challenge to the RIAA's boilerplate, of which we are aware. This is the same case in which the RIAA had sent a letter to the Judge falsely indicating that AOL had "confirmed that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed". Ms. Schwartz suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and has never engaged in file sharing, but the RIAA has pressed the case against her.

A few days ago it was reported that, in view of the RIAA's one-month delay in paying the $68,685.00 attorneys fee award in Capitol v. Foster, and its lawyers' failure to respond to Ms. Foster's lawyer's email, Ms. Foster filed a motion for entry of judgment so that she could go ahead with judgment enforcement proceedings. In response to that motion the RIAA submitted a statement that it had no objection to entry of judgment, and intimated that it thought there would be an automatic stay on enforcement of the judgment, and that it would ultimately file an appeal. After seeing that, Ms. Foster's lawyer has filed a motion for the Court to require the RIAA to post $210,000 in security to cover the past and future attorneys fees and costs which are expected to be incurred.

Can it be that the RIAA, or the "Big 4" record companies it represents, are short on funds? It turns out that despite the Judge's order, entered a month ago, telling them to pay Debbie Foster $68,685.23 in attorneys fees, in Capitol v. Foster, they have failed to make payment, and Ms. Foster has now had to ask the Court to enter Judgment, so that she can commence "post judgment collection proceedings". According to Ms. Foster's motion papers (pdf), her attorneys received no response to their email inquiry about payment. Perhaps the RIAA should ask their lawyers for a loan.

UMG Recordings, part of the Universal music group, one of the "Big 4" record companies, has brought suit against an eBay reseller of Promo CD's (pdf), in UMB v. Augusto, in California. The defendant, whose legal team includes the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is fighting back (pdf), claiming that his sales of the CD's are lawful under the "first sale" doctrine under Section 109 of the Copyright Act (17 USC 109), and counterclaiming against UMG for sending out false notices under the DMCA (Copyright Act Section 512).

The RIAA's challenges to Judge Lee R. West's order (pdf) awarding the defendant attorneys fees in Capitol v. Foster and to the "reasonableness" of Ms. Foster's attorneys' fees have not only forced the RIAA to disclose its own attorneys fees, and caused the judge to issue a second decision labeling them as "disingenuous", their motives "questionable", and their factual statements "not true", but have now caused the amount of the fees to more than double, from $55,000 to $114,000, as evidenced by Ms. Foster's supplemental fee application (pdf's).

In SONY v. Arellanes, an RIAA case in Sherman, Texas, the Court entered a protective order (pdf), which spells out the following procedure for the RIAA's examination of the defendant's hard drive: (1) RIAA imaging specialist makes mirror image of hard drive; (2) mutually acceptable computer forensics expert makes make 2 verified bit images, and creates an MD5 or equivalent hash code; (3) one mirror image is held in escrow by the expert, the other given to defendant's lawyer for a 'privilege review'; (4) defendant's lawyer provides plaintiffs' lawyer with a "privilege log" (list of privileged files); (5) after privilege questions are resolved, the escrowed image -- with privileged files deleted -- will be turned over to RIAA lawyers, to be held for 'lawyers' eyes only'. The order differs from the earlier order (pdf) entered in the case, in that it (a) permits the RIAA's own imaging person to make the initial mirror image and (b) spells out the details of the method for safeguarding privilege and privacy.

In an Oklahoma case, Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster, the Court has granted the defendant's motion for attorneys fees to be imposed against the RIAA, holding that Ms. Foster is to receive her "reasonable attorney's fees". Judge Lee R. West, in his 9-page decision(pdf), did not specify the amount to be awarded, held that the RIAA can have "discovery" on the reasonableness issue, and also ruled that Ms. Foster can also later supplement her application for additional fees. Her initial application was for approximately $55,000 in legal fees and disbursements. This is the case in which the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the ACLU Oklahoma Foundation, all filed an amicus brief on Ms. Foster's behalf, arguing to the judge that a substantial attorneys fee award was needed to discourage the RIAA's "driftnet" litigation strategy.

The RIAA is seeking to drop its case against Patti Santangelo, Elektra v. Santangelo, in White Plains, New York. This is the case against a single mom, and mother of five, which received a great deal of press attention in 2005. The case was discussed on Slashdot here, here, and here, was on national television here and here, and received a lot of other press coverage as well. See sampling of articles collected here and see Associated Press coverage here. The RIAA's motion seeks dismissal "without prejudice", which means that they could sue her again for the same thing. Their reason is no doubt to try to insulate themselves from liability for attorney's fees, since a dismissal "with prejudice" would make Ms. Santangelo a "prevailing party" under the Copyright Act, hence eligible for an attorneys fees award. See Capitol v. Foster July 13, 2006, Order Dismissing Case and Finding Defendant to be Eligible for Attorneys Fees.

A recently obtained English translation of the opinion of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal in Foundation v. UPC Nederland, agrees with the lower court decision that the MediaSentry investigation by Tom Mizzone was an insufficiently reliable basis to warrant directing Dutch ISP's to turn over confidential customer information to the RIAA's Netherlands counterpart: "neither the affidavits nor the cross-examination of Mr. Millin pro[...]vide clear and comprehensive evidence as to how the pseudonyms of the KaAaA or iMesh users were linked to the IP addresses identified by MediaSentry. No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service." The appeals court agreed with the independent experts report of Prof. Henk Sips and Dr. Johan Pouwelse of the Parallel and Distributed Systems research group at Delft University of Technology that MediaSentry's Tom Mizzone had not taken the "necessary precautions" in conducting his 'investigation' and that his investigation was 'limited' and 'simplistic', failing to "resolve... relevant technical problems such as superpeer hopping, NAT translation, and firewall relaying....[failing to implement] "actual complete file transfer....simply [taking] filenames at face value and ...[failing to make] any correction for pollution on Kazaa [despite] [p]ollution levels [on Kazaa which] can be as high as 90% for some files....[not being aware of] the limitations of Kazaa in file searching. Not many of the 2,499,121 users online would be able to see the mentioned 736 files. Reliable global searching in P2P file sharing networks is still an unsolved problem. Only users connected to the same Kazaa Superpeer are guaranteed to see these files when Kazaa operates properly (roughly 100 to 150 users as measured by Prof. Keith Ross)....[failing to take] computer hygiene precautions ..... The collected evidence of the spacemansam@KaZaA alias [query] contains multi-peer downloading contamination. Therefore, it is difficult to establish the contribution of the various IP-addresses. It is possible that some IP-addresses contributed 0 Bytes to an actual download, thus there was only involvement and no actual contribution". The Netherlands litigation recently came to the fore recently in UMG v. Lindor, a United States case, in which the RIAA is trying to prevent Ms. Lindor's attorneys from seeing the MediaSentry agreements spelling out the "instructions", "parameters", and "processes" of Mr. Mizzone's investigation, and Ms. Lindor's attorneys argue that the agreements are necessary for a proper deposition and cross-examination of Mr. Mizzone.

According to court papers by Henk Sips and Johan Powelse of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, submitted recently in a United States RIAA v. consumer case, UMG v. Lindor, MediaSentry's 'investigations' of copyright infringers using Kazaa p2p file sharing software are flawed, having failed to resolve "relevant technical problems such as superpeer hopping, NAT translation, and firewall relaying by Kazaa". Professor Sips and Dr. Pouwelse work in the university's "Parallel and Distributed Systems" research group.