--- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:57:03 -0500 From: "Paul Levy" <plevy@private> To: <declan@private> Subject: Protecting anonymity on line, even when copyright infringement is alleged I just wanted to bring you up to date on developments since Public Citizen, the ACLU, and EFF filed briefs at the beginning of the week arguing that the recording companies had cut too many corners by their recent mass infringement lawsuits against hundreds of Doe defendants, in courts too far from where the defendants appear to live, and seeking to identify the Doe defendants based on evidence submitted about the alleged infringements of only a handful of individuals in each case. Our main brief is available on the Public Citizen web site at http://www.citizen.org/documents/UMGRecordingsvDoeAmicusMemo.pdf; a terrific declaration by EFF counsel Wendy Seltzer, showing how the music companies could have learned for themselves how far many of the defendants live from the courthouses, is at http://www.citizen.org/documents/UMGRecordingsAmicusSeltzerDeclaration.pdf We have sought to express our views in three different cases, two in New York and one in DC. In the DC case, pending before Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the judge has not yet ruled on either our motion for leave to file an amicus brief or the plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve subpoenas. The plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to file a response to our arguments by the end of next week. Verizon has given assurances that whatever information they have identifying the Doe defendants will not be destroyed while the judge gives orderly consideration of the matter. In the New York case pending before Judge Chin, Judge Chin had apparently issued an order allowing discovery before we could file anything; however, he gave us permission to boil our arguments down to a five page letter, and in reaction to our letter he has issued an additional order indicating that the concerns we raised would ONLY be considered if either the ISP (Cablevision) or one of the Doe defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Although this is not ideal (after all, if the court doesn't have personal jurisdiction because the defendasnt does not llive in New York, why should the defendant be under the burden to file in the first place?), but it is progress. It remains to be seen whether Cablevision will move to quash, meeting the standard set by Verizon in seeking to protect its customers' right to fair process. In the New York case pending before Judge Sprizzo, we have not yet been allowed even to file our motion for leave to file an amicus brief because Judge Sprizzo, like many federal judges in New York, requires a "pre-motion conference" before a motion, even a motion for leave to file a brief, can be filed. We have provided Judge Sprizzo with a short explanation of why we want to file a brief, and he has set a pre-motion conference to be held on Tuesday afternoon. A copy of the joint press release issued by Public Citizen, EFF and ACLU can be accessed at http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1636. Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 09 2004 - 22:00:22 PST