RIAA lawsuit slowdown: Can only sue one person at at time

[Roundabout]

Kind of good news, it looks like it's getting more costly for the RIAA to sue from now on. Now they have to weigh each case on whether it's worth it to go after someone or not, instead of just creating a blanket lawsuit.

From Wired:

One File Swapper, One Lawsuit

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the music industry cannot sue over 200 alleged file sharers in one swoop and that the companies must sue each defendant individually.

The Recording Industry Association of America grouped 203 so-called "John Doe" defendants -- "John Doe" because their identities are not yet known -- into one lawsuit when it sued them in federal court in Philadelphia last month. All of those sued use Comcast as their Internet service provider. Since a federal court barred the RIAA from using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to subpoena names of suspected copyright infringers in December, the recording industry has resorted to the "John Doe" method. The RIAA now must identify alleged file swappers by their Internet Protocol addresses, but does not know the individuals' names.

On Friday, Judge Clarence Newcomer authorized a subpoena in the case of John Doe No. 1, because the RIAA had submitted a detailed case against the individual. But the judge ordered the music industry to file separate suits against the remaining 202 alleged infringers.

Each of the lawsuits will be doled out to judges in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the RIAA will have to make separate requests to seek the identity of each alleged file sharer.

"We're glad the judge has recognized that the RIAA was trying to skirt around the regular rules for lawsuits by grouping over 200 individuals as a gang of file sharers," said Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "We think each individual who is being sued has a right to have their own trial and have their own privacy interests evaluated independently of anyone else who's being sued."

Schultz said that the order ensures that the judges assess the strength of the RIAA's case for each person.

The music trade group must pay court fees for each of these cases. Filing each lawsuit will cost $150 in court fees, for a total of over $30,000, according to the EFF.

The RIAA would not say what it plans to do.

"We are weighing our options," said RIAA spokeswoman Amanda Collins. She declined to elaborate.

One intellectual property attorney agreed with the judge's orders.

"It's not enough to say that each act of the defendant was an act of copyright infringement," said Scott Hervey, an attorney with Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Sproul. "That doesn't give the recording industry the right to sue them all as one big clump."

"I think the judge's ruling was procedurally correct."

[adam]

Sure would suck to be that John Doe #1 though.

[lordsmurf]

Only one things to say:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

RIAA is no more special than anybody else. About damned time judges starting calling BS on their practices.

[BobV]

RIAA = Media Nazi

They seem to be determined to get what they want no matter how many individual rights they trample.

Score One for the good guys

[tgpo]

All this over downloading some crappy Eminem song that sucks in the first place. It's just not worth it to me. I'll stick to buying albums from half.com. That way I'm not giving the RIAA any more money and I get it cheap.

[glockjs]

hahaha...
speaking for myself john doe #2541564
riaa can kiss my a$$<---thats right i pulled out the dollar signs, whats up
hahahahaha

[NCdevil]

Something I thought of the other day. What about all these stores that buy and sell used CD's and DVD's. Where are they getting the authorization to do that? If we cannot legally give away the product we pruchased, how can they sell it?

[Thorn]

If we cannot legally give away the product we pruchased, how can they sell it?

Very different. If you go by the concept that "you've purchased a license to listen" then that license is resellable by some fair use type law. You're guaranteed the right to resell certain things you buy. The gov guarantees you the right to resell, but not the ability (i.e. DRM prevents resell...).

On the other hand "giving away" would be fine if you gave one copy, and didn't keep one. When you make more than one copy, you've got a bunch of unlicensed users, and you've infringed on the copyright.

This has beene explained much more clearly here by others, but the concept is pretty important to understand. The idea isn't immoral or corrupt... it's the RIAA that fits that bill.

[Moloko_Plus]

All this over downloading some crappy Eminem song that sucks in the first place. It's just not worth it to me. I'll stick to buying albums from half.com. That way I'm not giving the RIAA any more money and I get it cheap.

Now I have a reason to hate you, tgpo. :P Why buy when it fits so easily onto a hardrive?

[tgpo]

Now I have a reason to hate you, tgpo. :P

Everyone should have at least one 8)

Why buy when it fits so easily onto a hardrive?

Because that HD doesn't fit so easily in my car.

[sullen]

Not to hijack the thread too much but...
Hey tgpo, third from the left is the one that left the band and is really "successful" now isn't it?

[tgpo]

Yeah man. Matt Sharp, the same guy that was in my previous avatar. He formed one of my favorite bands, The Rentals. He now is solo, but has been seen on stage with Rivers a few weeks ago.