Plans Begin for the Second
Annual P2P Litigation Summit
20 June 2006 Law Offices of Charles Lee Mudd
Jr. continues to plan the Second Annual P2P Litigation Summit
to be held in 2006. For more information, contact Katherine
Mudd by phone (773 588 5410) or email.
Fighting the RIAA
in Litigation
20 June 2006 Last Winter, there were articles
and comments about individuals who have chosen to "fight
back" against the RIAA. What does this mean? Essentially,
anyone who "fights back" against the RIAA will likely
be defending themselves against the RIAA (more particularly,
individual record companies who are members of the RIAA) in
the litigation filed against them. These efforts may or may
not be successful. However, we have not yet, to date, seen any
party be successful except in rare and particularized circumstances.
Moreover, even these successes have been limited in their impact.
We wish those who "fight back" against the RIAA best
wishes. However, caution should be employed before engaging
in such a strategy (see more in RIAA Legal Initiative).
That being said, we represent individuals who have chosen to
"fight back" against the RIAA and their oppressive
lawsuits. For example, we represent David
Greubel who has chosen to defend the litigation filed against
him in the Northern District of Texas.
Lawsuits Continue
20 June 2006 The RIAA and MPAA continue to
file lawsuits against individuals using the Internet as well
as those collegiate users of the Internet2 network (ihub2).
Although certain terms sought by the RIAA differ depending on
the suit, the lawsuits and the allegations remain predominantly
the same. We continue to represent individuals who have been
sued by the RIAA for file-sharing on the Internet and/or ihub2.
Supreme Court Decides
MGM v. Grokster
27 June 2005 The Supreme Court ruled
on the much discussed MGM v. Grokster appeal from the
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court
of the United States concluded that the District Court entered
summary judgment in favor of Grokster in error. It therefore
reversed the lower court's entry of summary judgment in favor
of Grokster and remanded the case. The Court held that its prior
decision in Sony (the Betamax case) did not preclude consideration
of evidence demonstrating intent to induce or promote infringement.
The Supreme Court concluded that the record clearly demonstrated
the unlawful objective behind Grokster.
Will the decision in Grokster have an impact on the individual
user of Grokster or other P2P software? Not Directly. It should
demonstrate to individuals that Grokster does not represent
a safe or "legal" product. Arguably, it also reinforces
the proposition that P2P file-sharing remains illegal under
the current copyright regime. Thus, while it may not affect
one directly, the RIAA and MPAA may use the decision to reinforce
their position that use of Grokster and P2P software like Grokster
remains illegal. They will be sure to contend that the Supreme
Court's decision removes much doubt as to the illegality of
the software and the underlying activity. Thus, while they have
little to know sympathy, there will likely be less tolerance
for any claims of ignorance of the law.
For more information, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has
a number of documents available here.
Misuse of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act
14 April 2005 The
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina issued an Order
affirming the analysis of the D.C. and 8th Circuits holding
that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) misused
the subpoena provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA). This does not have much significance at this juncture
because the RIAA abandoned the DMCA approach to litigation some
time ago (see RIAA Legal Initiative:
Subpoena). The Order does conclude that the universities at
issue constitute 512(a) service providers concerned with transmission
functions not storage functions. Thus, the subpoena provisions
of 512(h) were not applicable. The court also addressed the
matter of from where a subpoena must be issued under 512(h)
concluding that the subpoena must be issued from a court that
would have jurisdiction over the dispute. Privacy and other
issues, though raised by the parties, were not addressed.
|
