Judge stays enforcement of subpoena in Malibu Media v Does 1-13

In Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, another BitTorrent downloading "John Doe" case, a defendant has moved to sever the actions, and to quash the subpoenas.

Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle has issued an order staying enforcement of the subpoenas pending a determination of the motion.

Motion for protective order, to sever, and/or to quash
Order staying enforcement of subpoenas

Motion for discovery into John Doe identities denied in KBeech v. Does 1-37

In K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-37, and in 3 other similar BitTorrent downloading cases pending in the US District Court for the Eastern District, in Brooklyn, the plaintiffs' motions for expedited discovery have been denied, the cases against the various John Doe defendants severed, and the defendants' motions to quash were in most respects granted, in a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Gary Brown.
Some excerpts from the decision:

These actions are part of a nationwide blizzard of civil actions brought by purveyors of pornographic films alleging copyright infringement by individuals utilizing a computer protocol known as BitTorrent.....
.....
The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time. An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones...... Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call. Indeed, due to the increasingly popularity of wireless routers, it much less likely. While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access.5 Several of the ISPs at issue in this case provide a complimentary wireless router as part of Internet service. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals. See U.S. v. Latham, 2007 WL 4563459, at *4 (D.Nev. Dec. 18, 2007). Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff’s film.
....
[A]lthough the complaints state that IP addresses are assigned to “devices” and thus by discovering the individual associated with that IP address will reveal “defendants’ true identity,” this is unlikely to be the case. Most, if not all, of the IP addresses will actually reflect a wireless router or other networking device, meaning that while the ISPs will provide the name of its subscriber, the alleged infringer could be the subscriber, a member of his or her family, an employee, invitee, neighbor or interloper.
...............
Our federal court system provides litigants with some of the finest tools available to assist in resolving disputes; the courts should not, however, permit those tools to be used as a bludgeon. As one court advised Patrick Collins Inc. in an earlier case, “while the courts favor settlements, filing one mass action in order to identify hundreds of doe defendants through pre-service discovery and facilitate mass settlement, is not what the joinder rules were established for.” Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1–3757, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128029, at *6–7 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 4, 2011). ..............................
In the four cases before this Court, plaintiffs have improperly avoided more than $25,000 in filing fees by employing its swarm joinder theory. Considering all the cases filed by just these three plaintiffs in this district, more than $100,000 in filing fees have been evaded. If the reported estimates that hundreds of thousands of such defendants have been sued nationwide, plaintiffs in similar actions may be evading millions of dollars in filing fees annually. Nationwide, these plaintiffs have availed themselves of the resources of the court system on a scale rarely seen. It seems improper that they should profit without paying statutorily required fees.

May 1, 2012, Decision of Magistrate Judge Gary Brown

Tumblr sued for its users' copyright infringement in Perfect 10 v Tumblr

In Perfect 10 v. Tumbler, the photo sharing site Tumblr has been sued for copyright infringement.

Complaint

New scheduling order entered in Capitol v ReDigi

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, a new scheduling order has been entered, providing for discovery to be concluded by June 20th, and for the summary judgment briefing to be conducted over the summer, and for oral argument of the summary judgment motion to take place on October 5th.

Amended Case Management Order

Possible change of lawyers representing ReDigi in Capitol Records v ReDigi

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, papers have been submitted requesting permission for a substitution of ReDigi's counsel.

ReDigi's present firm is Ray Beckerman, PC.

The proposed new firm would be Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.

The judge has requested a joint letter from Capitol Records' lawyers and the Meister Seelig firm indicating whether deadlines in the case management order would be affected by the proposed substitution.

Stipulation of Substitution
Statement pursuant to Local Rule 1.4
Order requesting joint statement from plaintiff's counsel and proposed incoming defendant's counsel

UMG's summary judgment motion denied in James v UMG, digital download 'sale vs license' case

In James v. UMG Recordings, a royalty agreement class action which alleges that UMG understated royalties owed to performing artists for digital downloads by classifying them as sales, rather than licenses, UMG's motion for summary judgment has been denied.

April 19, 2012, Opinion denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment

Ex parte motion for expedited discovery denied in Hard Drive v. Does 1-90

In Hard Drive v. Does 1-90, a mass John Doe case based on alleged BitTorrent downloads of a movie, pending in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, the Court, by Hon. Howard R. Lloyd, Magistrate Judge, has denied plaintiff's ex parte motion for expedited discovery.

Judge Lloyd's decision held that

the court will not assist a plaintiff who seems to have no desire to actually litigate but instead seems to be using the courts to pursue an extrajudicial business plan against possible infringers (and innocent others caught up in the ISP net). Plaintiff seeks to enlist the aid of the court to obtain information through the litigation discovery process so that it can pursue a non-judicial remedy that focuses on extracting “settlement” payments from persons who may or may not be infringers. This the court is not willing to do.

Order Denying Expedited Discovery

All defendants' dismissal motions denied in Grooveshark case, Arista v Escape Media

All of the defendants' dismissal motions were denied from the bench on April 6th, in Arista Music v. Escape Media:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas P. Griesa: Oral Argument held on 4/6/2012. Defendants' three motions to dismiss are denied in open court. (cd)

Viacom v. YouTube reversed, remanded for trial

In Viacom v. YouTube, a 2-judge panel in the Second Circuit* reversed the District Court decision granting summary judgment to YouTube, and remanded for a trial of certain factual issues.

* Judge Miner, who was originally a member of the panel, passed away prior to the decision.

April 5, 2012, decision of US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

Additional briefs filed by DOJ & Jammie Thomas-Rasset in 8th Circuit

In the 8th Circuit appeal of Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the Department of Justice and Jammie Thomas-Rasset have filed further briefs.

DOJ Appellee Brief
Thomas-Rasset Reply Brief