[Plaintiff] claims that Kelly agreed to hit the stage on December 6, 2007
at the Target Center alongside Keyshia Cole and Ne-Yo. Allegedly, Kelly
failed to show but still took a $120,000 fee for it.
February 1, 2008
"Your Honor, I was Trapped in the Closet"
R. Kelley is being sued by a Nevada-based promoter for allegedly failing to appear at a scheduled performance.
Observations on a Eulogy for the CD, by the WSJ
Is the CD dead? The Wall Street Journal weighs in: "Determining what killed the CD is kind of playing "Clue" in reverse -- what didn't contribute to its demise?"
Who doesn't like playing Clue, or at least talking about it?
[Jason Fry, "Beyond the Album", Wall Street Journal (Jan. 27, 2008)]
Who doesn't like playing Clue, or at least talking about it?
[Jason Fry, "Beyond the Album", Wall Street Journal (Jan. 27, 2008)]
January 31, 2008
What The Game's Been Missing
LaRon James (not to be confused with LeBron James ), the performer better known as Def Jam recording artist "Juelz Santana", is being sued in New York Supreme Court in a contract action for failure to pay on a judgment. The plaintiff seeks $1.3 million.
Trivia for NY-admitted attorneys: what provision of the CPLR would such suit be brought under?
[FHE Record Group Inc. v. Juelz Santana aka Leron James; Santana's World Inc.; filed, 1/30/2008; case no. 08-600279]
Trivia for NY-admitted attorneys: what provision of the CPLR would such suit be brought under?
[FHE Record Group Inc. v. Juelz Santana aka Leron James; Santana's World Inc.; filed, 1/30/2008; case no. 08-600279]
I Went to College - And Got Sued by the RIAA!
Another day at the races for the major labels, who yesterday (1/30) filed no less than 7 copyright infringement cases against "John Doe" defendants in various federal district courts.
Here's a highlight from Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Does 1-4 (1:08-cv-00120-RLY-TAB; filed 1/30/08 in the Southern District of Indiana):
"The true names and capacities of Defendants are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Each Defendant is known to Plaintiffs only by the Internet Protocol ("IP") address assigned to that Defendant by his or her ISP on the date and time of that Defendant's infringing activity...Plaintiffs believe that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification of each Defendant's true name."
Continuing,
"Although Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendants, each Defendant is alleged to have committed violations of the same law (e.g., copyright law), by committing the same acts (e.g., the downloading and distribution of copyright sound recordings owned by Plaintiffs), and by using the same means (e.g., a file-sharing network) that each Defendant accessed via the same ISP. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' right to relief arises out of the same series of transactions or occurrences, and there are questions of law or fact common to all Defendants such that joinder is warranted and appropriate here."
Several queries: first, can plaintiffs allege facts as mere "e.g."s? Their description of the infringing acts is beyond general and vague! Second, when you have 15 or more plaintiffs, how much damages does each actually get? The sheer number of plaintiffs indicates that these suits are meant as a deterrent to on-line infringement, rather than as a means to redress actual injury.
But, the fun doesn't stop. Plaintiffs in the above case also filed an ex parte motion for leave to take immediate discovery on a third party ISP to determine the true identies of the Doe defendants.
"Plaintiffs intend to serve a [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP seeking documents that identify each Defendant's true name, current (and permanent) addresses and telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and Media Access Control ("MAC") addresses. Without this information, Plaintiffs cannot identify the Doe Defendants or pursue their lawsuit to protect their copyrighted works from repeated infringement."
A glance at the attached "proposed order" shows that the ISP is Indiana University-Purdue University...so IU students, look out!
Also filed with the motion was a brief and affidavit, with attached exhibits of similar orders granted in other district courts. (S.D. Ind.; W.D.Wis.; N.D. Ill; N.D. Ind.; E.D. Wis; C.D. Ill.)
Faithful readers of OTCS, you guessed it. Virtually identical complaints, ex parte motions (and affidavits from the same individual, Carlos Linares) were filed in the other Doe cases: Elektra Enter. Group Inc. v. Does 1-11, (1:-08-cv-10140-NG; filed 1/30/08; D.Mass); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-3 (1:08-cv-10139-NG; filed 1/30/08); Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Does 1-14 (1:08-cv-00028-JAW; filed 1/30/08; D.Maine); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-36 (0:08-cv-00278-DWF-AJB; filed 1/30/08; D.Minn - 2d Div.); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-5; 3:08-cv-00523-GEB-TJB; filed 1/30/08; order granting ex parte discovery on Princeton University 1/30/08; D.N.J); and Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-10 (5:08-cv-00108-NPM-GJD; filed 1/30/08; N.D.N.Y.; proposed order indicates discovery sought on Ithaca College).
I wonder how the clerks of each of the above courts would feel knowing plaintiffs are filing form-complaints and motions with the court? Are the district courts a processing center for the RIAA?
Here's a highlight from Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Does 1-4 (1:08-cv-00120-RLY-TAB; filed 1/30/08 in the Southern District of Indiana):
"The true names and capacities of Defendants are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Each Defendant is known to Plaintiffs only by the Internet Protocol ("IP") address assigned to that Defendant by his or her ISP on the date and time of that Defendant's infringing activity...Plaintiffs believe that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification of each Defendant's true name."
Continuing,
"Although Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendants, each Defendant is alleged to have committed violations of the same law (e.g., copyright law), by committing the same acts (e.g., the downloading and distribution of copyright sound recordings owned by Plaintiffs), and by using the same means (e.g., a file-sharing network) that each Defendant accessed via the same ISP. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' right to relief arises out of the same series of transactions or occurrences, and there are questions of law or fact common to all Defendants such that joinder is warranted and appropriate here."
Several queries: first, can plaintiffs allege facts as mere "e.g."s? Their description of the infringing acts is beyond general and vague! Second, when you have 15 or more plaintiffs, how much damages does each actually get? The sheer number of plaintiffs indicates that these suits are meant as a deterrent to on-line infringement, rather than as a means to redress actual injury.
But, the fun doesn't stop. Plaintiffs in the above case also filed an ex parte motion for leave to take immediate discovery on a third party ISP to determine the true identies of the Doe defendants.
"Plaintiffs intend to serve a [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP seeking documents that identify each Defendant's true name, current (and permanent) addresses and telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and Media Access Control ("MAC") addresses. Without this information, Plaintiffs cannot identify the Doe Defendants or pursue their lawsuit to protect their copyrighted works from repeated infringement."
A glance at the attached "proposed order" shows that the ISP is Indiana University-Purdue University...so IU students, look out!
Also filed with the motion was a brief and affidavit, with attached exhibits of similar orders granted in other district courts. (S.D. Ind.; W.D.Wis.; N.D. Ill; N.D. Ind.; E.D. Wis; C.D. Ill.)
Faithful readers of OTCS, you guessed it. Virtually identical complaints, ex parte motions (and affidavits from the same individual, Carlos Linares) were filed in the other Doe cases: Elektra Enter. Group Inc. v. Does 1-11, (1:-08-cv-10140-NG; filed 1/30/08; D.Mass); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-3 (1:08-cv-10139-NG; filed 1/30/08); Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Does 1-14 (1:08-cv-00028-JAW; filed 1/30/08; D.Maine); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-36 (0:08-cv-00278-DWF-AJB; filed 1/30/08; D.Minn - 2d Div.); Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-5; 3:08-cv-00523-GEB-TJB; filed 1/30/08; order granting ex parte discovery on Princeton University 1/30/08; D.N.J); and Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-10 (5:08-cv-00108-NPM-GJD; filed 1/30/08; N.D.N.Y.; proposed order indicates discovery sought on Ithaca College).
I wonder how the clerks of each of the above courts would feel knowing plaintiffs are filing form-complaints and motions with the court? Are the district courts a processing center for the RIAA?
January 30, 2008
U2 Manager - Achtung Baby!
Rolling Stone reports that U2 manager Paul McGuinness "called for an end to illegal music downloading and placed much of the blame squarely at the feet of Internet service providers. He also called out record labels for their lack of foresight and governments for not holding ISPs responsible for what pumps through their wires."
Understandably, McGuiness wants to secure the financial future of the band. And yes, U2 should not only strive to be great at music, but also great at business too.
But, being great at business is not analogous to clinging to the old model of the music business. Adapt. Otherwise, you still haven't found what you're looking for.
Understandably, McGuiness wants to secure the financial future of the band. And yes, U2 should not only strive to be great at music, but also great at business too.
But, being great at business is not analogous to clinging to the old model of the music business. Adapt. Otherwise, you still haven't found what you're looking for.
Let My People Go
Can you imagine a music group being BANNED by a nation, out of fear that they would corrupt young fans? A tipster sent this link, reporting that Israel has lifted its ban on the most corrupt band in music history: The Beatles?!
...of course, similar debates continue today. Is graphic violence and sexual content in video games contributing to "the corruption of youths"? The music industry is not immune from such manic fear; anyone purchasing an album with a "Tipper Sticker" (i.e., parental advisory label) should know that this nation, the bastion of free speech, has had its own scares of censorship.
...of course, similar debates continue today. Is graphic violence and sexual content in video games contributing to "the corruption of youths"? The music industry is not immune from such manic fear; anyone purchasing an album with a "Tipper Sticker" (i.e., parental advisory label) should know that this nation, the bastion of free speech, has had its own scares of censorship.
January 29, 2008
What I Like About You
The Patry Copyright blog posted an interesting decision in the "Guitar Hero" case pending in the Eastern District of Michigan. You can read the decision here.
Of interest are the right to publicity claims, and both the standing and preemption issues.
[The Romantics v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 2008 WL 186370 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2008)]
Of interest are the right to publicity claims, and both the standing and preemption issues.
[The Romantics v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 2008 WL 186370 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2008)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
