Case Date: March 31, 2008
Facts: Plaintiffs allege that the defendants (mostly college students) used p2p software to “download and/or distribute to the public†copyrighted music and therefore has violated the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. The plaintiffs have been able to discover file sharing activity, however, were unable to discover the identity of the users.
Procedural History: Approximately 40 “John Doe†cases consolidated to ensure administrative efficiency and allow defendants to see the defenses, if any, that the other Does have raised. A motion for expedited discovery was made by plaintiffs. Of the 40 Does’, only three elected to fight the subpoena, the rest settled for between $3,000 and $6,000. Two motions to quash by defendants were the granted until the plaintiffs could bring forth more evidence.
Issue: Whether the “making available†right is enough to equal “distribution†within the context of the Copyright Act or if it only extends to actual distributions.
Holding: No. Actual distribution must be shown.
Court Reasoning: Judge Gertner held that “the defendants cannot be liable for violating the plaintiff’s distribution right unless a ‘distribution’ actually occurred.†This then begs the question on what exactly constitutes a distribution. Like many other music piracy cases, plaintiffs feel that simply “making available†a copyrighted song on your computer qualifies as distribution. However, this court does not buy the argument and holds that evidence that a particular song was actually distributed to someone else after being downloaded needs to be shown.
Facts: Plaintiffs allege that the defendants (mostly college students) used p2p software to “download and/or distribute to the public†copyrighted music and therefore has violated the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. The plaintiffs have been able to discover file sharing activity, however, were unable to discover the identity of the users.
Procedural History: Approximately 40 “John Doe†cases consolidated to ensure administrative efficiency and allow defendants to see the defenses, if any, that the other Does have raised. A motion for expedited discovery was made by plaintiffs. Of the 40 Does’, only three elected to fight the subpoena, the rest settled for between $3,000 and $6,000. Two motions to quash by defendants were the granted until the plaintiffs could bring forth more evidence.
Issue: Whether the “making available†right is enough to equal “distribution†within the context of the Copyright Act or if it only extends to actual distributions.
Holding: No. Actual distribution must be shown.
Court Reasoning: Judge Gertner held that “the defendants cannot be liable for violating the plaintiff’s distribution right unless a ‘distribution’ actually occurred.†This then begs the question on what exactly constitutes a distribution. Like many other music piracy cases, plaintiffs feel that simply “making available†a copyrighted song on your computer qualifies as distribution. However, this court does not buy the argument and holds that evidence that a particular song was actually distributed to someone else after being downloaded needs to be shown.