EFF: 20040126 capitol memo

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERNDISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Civil Action No.: 04 CV 472 (LAK)(HBP)CAPITOL RECORDS, NC., a Delawarecorporation;ARISTA RECORDS, NC., aDelaware orporation; NTERSCOPERECORDS,a California generalpartnership;LOUD RECORDS,LLC, a Delaware orporation;UMG RECORDINGS, NC., a Delawarecorporation;WARNER BROS.RECORDS NC.,a Delawarecorporation;ATLANTICRECORDINGCORPORATION,a Delawarecorporation;FONOVISA, INC., a Californiacorporation;SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENTINC., a Delawarecorporation;BMG MUSIC, aNew York generalpartnership;LONDON-SIRERECORDS NC., a Delawarecorporation;MOTOWN RECORDCOMPANY, L.P., aCalifornia imited partnership;PRIORITYRECORDSLLC, a California imited liabilitycompany;MAVERICK RECORDINGCOMPANY, a California oint venture;ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP NC., aDelawarecorporation;and VIRGIN RECORDSAMERICA, INC., a California corporation,Plaintiffs,-against-DOES 1

250,Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE- --- - - --- -PPLICATION TO TAKE IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY

INTRODUCTIONPlaintiffs, recordcompanieswho own the copyrights n the most popular soundrecordingsn the United States, eek eaveof Court o serve imited, immediatediscoveryon a third party InternetServiceProvider "ISP") to detennine he true dentitiesof Defendants,who arebeing sued or direct copyright nfringement. Without suchdiscovery,Plaintiffs cannot identify the Doe Defendants, nd hus cannotpursue heir lawsuit o protect heir copyrightedworks from repetitive, ampant nfringement.As alleged n the complaint, he Doe Defendants,without authorization,usedan online mediadistribution system o downloadPlaintiffs' copyrightedworks, distributecopyrighted works to the public, and/ormakecopyrightedworks available or distribution o others. ~ Declarationof JonathanWhitehead "WhiteheadDecl."), ~ 16 andEx. 1. Although Plaintiffs do not know the rue namesof the Defendants,2 laintiffs have dentified eachDefendant y aunique nternetProtocol "IP") address ssignedo that Defendanton the dateand at the ime of the Defendant'snfringing activity.

Additionally, Plaintiffs havegathered videnceof theinfringing activities. ~ ~~ 16-17. Plaintiffs havemadecopiesof severalsound ecordingseach Defendant llegally distributedor madeavailable or distribution, andhaveobtainedcopiesof a morecomplete ist of files (at times numbering n the thousands)hat eachDefendanthasmade available o the public for distribution. 14.andEx. 1.

Plaintiffs have identified the ISP that provided Internet access o each Defendant by usinga publicly available database o trace the IP address or each Defendant.

~~ 12, 16. Here, the

ISP s Time WarnerCable.

When given a Defendant's F address nd he dateand ime of

Because laintiffs do not currentlyknow the dentity of any of the Defendants, laintiffs cannot

ascertain any of the Defendants' position on this Ex Parte Application.2 When using an online media distribution system (e.g., a peer-to-peer ("P2P") network, Whitehead Decl.~ 7), Defendants typically use monikers, or user names, and not their true names. Plaintiffs have noability to determine a Defendant's true name other than by seeking the information from the ISP.

~ ~~11,16-17.

infringement,an ISP quickly and easilycan dentify the nameand address f the Doe Defendant (i.e., the ISP's subscriber) ecausehat nfonnation s contained n the ISP's subscriber ctivitylog files.

~ ~

14.3 Plaintiffs' experiences that ISPs ypically keep og files of subscriberactivities or only limited periodsof time - sometimesor as ittle asweeksor evendays before erasing he data. ~ ~ 22.

Plaintiffs now seek eave of Court to serve imited, immediate discovery on Time WarnerCable to identify each Defendant. Plaintiffs intend to serve a Rule 45 subpoenaon the ISPseeking each Defendant's true name, address, elephone number, e-mail address, and MediaAccess Control ("MAC") addresses. Without this infonnation, Plaintiffs may never be able topursue their lawsuit to protect their copyrighted works from repeated nfringement. ~ ~ 22.Thus, the need for the limited, immediate discovery is critical.

II.BACKGROUND

The Internet and peer-to-peer ("P2P") networks have spawned an illegal trade incopyrighted works. By downloading P2P software, and logging onto a P2P network, anindividual can use an online media distribution system to upload (distribute) or download (copy),without authorization, countless copyrighted music and video files to or from any other Internet

userworldwide.

If1, 7. ~ UniversalCity Studios.nc. v. Reimerdes,1

F. Supp.2d 294,331 (S.D.N.Y.), affd sub nom.. UniversalCity Studios. nc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir.2001) (describinga viral system, n which the numberof infringing copiesmadeavailable multiplies rapidly aseachusercopying a file alsobecomes distributor of that file). Until enjoined,Napsterwas he most notoriousonline mediadistribution system. ~ee A&M Records.

ISPsown or are assigned ertainblocks or rangesofIP addresses. subscriber ainsaccesso the

Internet through an ISP after setting up an account with the ISP. An ISP then assigns a particular IPaddress n its block or range to the subscriber when that subscriber goes "online." After reviewing thesubscriber activity logs (which contain the assigned P addresses),an ISP can identify its subscribers byname. Whitehead Decl., ~ 14.

of 00

Category:	Uncategorized.
Rating:
Upload Date:	01/27/2008
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	copyright Law legal law eff electronicfrontierfoundation advocacy eff.org copyright Law legal law eff electronicfrontierfoundation advocacy eff.org (fewer)

Documents

People