Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Copyright Law Blogs -> Recording Industry vs The People
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Copyright Law
: Recording Industry vs The PeopleJudge requires plaintiff to show basis for jurisdiction in Achte/Neunte v Does 1-4577
By Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman
Thank you to Slashdot and Slyck for bringing this most recent ruling to my attention.
In Achte/Neunte v. Does 1-4577, one of the mass file sharing "John Doe" cases, involving motion pictures, following the RIAA model, the judge has ruled that the plaintiff is required to show a basis for suing defendants in the District of Columbia court.
The ruling came about in the context of an order partially granting plaintiff's motion to extend time to serve defendants.
Order partially granting motion for extension of time to make service
The defendants who'd opposed the motion were represented by:
Carey N. Lening of Washington, D.C.
Christina A. DiEdoardo of San Francisco, California
Tuna Mecit of Washington, D.C., and
Bradford A. Patrick of Tampa, Florida
The Court has previously denied various motions to quash in this case. See, e.g.
Order denying motion to quash (9/10/10)
Order denying motion to quash (11/18/10)
The Court has also granted Time Warner a partial protective order:
Order granting Time Warner limited protective order
And the Court has ruled that the defendants -- who are seeking to preserve their anonymity -- may not proceed anonymously. I.e., any defendant who wants to try to prevent Time Warner from disclosing his or her name and address to the plaintiff must disclose his name and address to the plaintiff. [?!]
Order requiring John Does to disclose their identities in order to participate in the litigation
[Ed. note. It's about time a judge has woken up to the lack of personal jurisdiction in the John Doe cases. I've been pointing out this injustice for the past 5 years. It's outrageous to be suing the "John Doe" defendants hundreds or thousands of miles away from where they reside. Why have so many judges, including Judge Collyer, ignored that issue to date? -R.B.]
Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player
Full post as published by Recording Industry vs The People on November 21, 2010 (boomark / email).
State Farm Undercompensation
alleging compensation for totaled vehicles is less than California law requires.
Lipitor
Review of Studies Show No Significant Benefit in Women
Tarceva
Safety Data Show Association with Liver Failure and Death
Baltimore Strip Search Class Action
Judge Gives Go-ahead
Canceled Insurance
Judge orders Health Net Inc. to pay $9 million settlement after terminating a policyholder's policy after being diagnosed with breast cancer.
Labor and Delivery
Judge awards mother $6 million medical malpractice settlement after baby was born with brain injuries.

EFF Argues Against Mass Copyright Infringement Lawsuits in Wednesday Hearing
EFF Asks Judges to Quash Subpoenas in Movie-Downloading Lawsuits
Court orders anonymous accused Bittorrent defendants to be identified
Assertions of infringment at trade show sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction in DJ action
Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Discharges Order to Show Cause








