Protecting anonymity even when copyright piracy is claimed [ip]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:57:03 -0500
From: "Paul Levy" <plevy () citizen org>
To: <declan () well com>
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/)