Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MM reply to MTD Doe 1

MM reply to MTD Doe 1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 120|Likes:
Published by Jordan Rushie

More info:

Published by: Jordan Rushie on Dec 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/12/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, a California limitedliability company,Plaintiff,v.JOHN DOES 1, 13 and 14,Defendants.CASE NUMBER: 5:12-cv-02088-MMBHonorable Michael M. Baylson
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, JOHN DOE NO.1’S, MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TOF.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) [CM/ECF 57]
Case 5:12-cv-02088-MMB Document 63 Filed 12/05/12 Page 1 of 13
 
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4II. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................5A. Online Peer-to-Peer Copying and Distribution Is Copyright Infringement .....................5B. Plaintiff Pled a Claim of Direct Infringement ................................................................71. Defendant’s ISP Need Not Correlate Him to Each Infringement For Plaintiff’sClaims to be Plausible ..........................................................................................82. Plaintiff Did Not Need to Serve The Entire Swarm ..............................................9C. BitTorrent Peers Are Not Necessary Parties Under Rule 19(a) ......................................9D. Defendant’s Argument That Plaintiff Lacks Capacity to Sue is Wrong ....................... 11E. Local Rule 40.1(b)(3) Has No Bearing on a Motion to Dismiss................................... 12III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 13
Case 5:12-cv-02088-MMB Document 63 Filed 12/05/12 Page 2 of 13
 
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9
th
Cir. 2001) ....................................6
 Aimster Copyright Litigation
, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003).........................................................6
 Arista Records, LLC. v. Doe 3
, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) ........................................................6
Charter Communications, Inc. Subpoena Enforcement Matter 
, 393 F.3d 771, 774 (8
th
Cir. 2005)................................................................................................................................................6
Culinary Service of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. Borough of Yardley, PA
, 385 Fed. Appx. 135, 145(3d Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................................................................9
 Dague v. Huddler 
, CIV.A. 07-5539, 2008 WL 4444266 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2008) ....................... 11
 Dun & Bradstreet Software Services, Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc.
, 307 F. 3d 197, 206 (3d Cir.2002) .......................................................................................................................................7
 Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside
, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2009) ....................................................8
 Interscope Records v. Duty
, 2006 WL 988086, (D. AZ 2006) ................................................... 10
 Liebeskind v. Alliance Title Co.
, C-07-3962 MMC, 2008 WL 160954 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2008).............................................................................................................................................. 12
 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
545 U.S. 913, 125 S.Ct. 2764 (2005) .........5
 Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith
, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) .......................................................9
 Multimedia Games, Inc. v. WLGC Acquisition Corp.
, 214 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1142(N.D.Okla.2001) .................................................................................................................... 11
 RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc.,
351 F.3d 1229, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ............................6
Sony v. Tennenbaum,
2011 WL 4133920 at (1st Cir. 2011) .........................................................7
Sony v. Tennenbaum,
660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011) ......................................................................6
Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd.,
498 U.S. 5, 6, 7-8, 111 S.Ct. 315, 316, 112 L.Ed.2d 263 (1990) . 10
TES Franchising, LLC v. Dombach
, CIV.A. 10-0017, 2010 WL 5071472 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24,2010) ................................................................................................................................. 8, 13
TIG Ins. v. Nobel Learning Communities, Inc.,
2002 WL 1340332 (E.D. Pa. 2002) .....................9
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV 
, 2000 WL 255989, (W.D. Pa. 2000) .................9
Typh, Inc. v. Typhoon Fence of Pa., Inc.
, 461 F.Supp. 994, 996-997 (D.C.Pa.1978) .................. 11
UMG Recording, Inc. v. Alburger 
, 2009 WL 3152153, (E.D. PA. 2009). ....................................6
Case 5:12-cv-02088-MMB Document 63 Filed 12/05/12 Page 3 of 13

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->