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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
United States v. Rojadirecta.org and Rojadirecta.com - Reply to Government's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

United States v. Rojadirecta.org and Rojadirecta.com - Reply to Government's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 43 |Likes:
Published by Devlin Hartline

More info:

Published by: Devlin Hartline on Sep 04, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

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

09/04/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.THE FOLLOWING DOMAIN NAMES:ROJADIRECTA.ORG, andROJADIRECTA.COM,Defendants
in rem
.
 
Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-04139-PAC
CLAIMANT PUERTO 80 PROJECTS, S.L.U.’S REPLY TOGOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THEMOTION TO DISMISS THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Case 1:11-cv-04139-PAC Document 26 Filed 09/02/11 Page 1 of 14
 
i 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I.
 
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................... 1
 
II.
 
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 2
 
A.
 
The Government is Attempting to Create a Factual Issue Where NoneExists. .................................................................................................................... 2
 
B.
 
The Government Has Not Alleged The Elements of Criminal CopyrightInfringement by Puerto 80
Or Anyone Else
. ......................................................... 2
 
1.
 
The Government Has Not Alleged Willful Infringement. ........................ 4
 
2.
 
The Government Has Not Alleged Financial Gain. .................................. 5
 
C.
 
The Government Has Failed to Alleged Facilitation or a “SubstantialConnection” Between the Domain Names And Any Illegal Acts. ....................... 6
 
D.
 
If the Statute Is Interpreted As Broadly as the Government Now Claims, ItIs Unconstitutional ................................................................................................ 7
 
E.
 
The Government Has Not Shown That U.S. Copyright Law Can Apply toRojadirecta’s Alleged “Facilitation” of Copyright Infringement ......................... 9
 
F.
 
The Government Should Not Be Granted Leave to Amend ............................... 10
 
III.
 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 10
 
Case 1:11-cv-04139-PAC Document 26 Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 14
 
ii 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)Cases
 
 Alexander v. United States
,509 U.S. 544 (1993) .................................................................................................................. 8
 Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc.
,No. 00-cv-4660, 2002 WL 1997918 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002) ............................................... 6
 Ashcroft v. Iqbal
,127 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) ............................................................................................................... 5
 Austin v. United States
,509 U.S. 602 (1993) .................................................................................................................. 6
 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
,372 U.S. 58 (1963) .................................................................................................................... 8
 Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp
.,263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 5
 Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Const. Trades Council
,485 U.S. 568 (1988) .................................................................................................................. 8
Fort Wayne Books
,
 Inc. v. Indiana
,
 
489 U.S. 46 (1989) .................................................................................................................... 8
Freedman v. Maryland 
,380 U.S. 51 (1965) .................................................................................................................... 8
 Heller v. New York 
,413 U.S. 483 (1973) .................................................................................................................. 8
Kaplan v. Jazeera
,No. 10-cv-5298, 2011 WL 2314783 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2011) ................................................. 4
 Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc.
,271 F.Supp. 2d 737 (D. Md. 2003) ........................................................................................... 4
 Marcus v. Search Warrants of Property
,367 U.S. 717 (1961) .................................................................................................................. 8
 Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. United States
,No. 93-cv-0307/0357, 1993 WL 158542 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 1993) ........................................ 7
 New York Times Co. v. United States
,403 U.S. 713 (1971) .............................................................................................................. 1, 8
Palmer v. Braun
,
 
376 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 9
Case 1:11-cv-04139-PAC Document 26 Filed 09/02/11 Page 3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

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