Blackflag
Junior Member
Good article. Props to this Cali judge in curtailing the RIAA and their gestapo tactics.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8884
"The RIAA loses a precedent-setting case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, in Southern California."
"As the plantiff did not present himself in court, a default judgement ruling was held. The presiding judge, Judge Brewster, shocked the RIAA by not only denying to make a default monetary judgement, but also completing dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.
Judge Brewster is on record as stating:
"Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant.
However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate this allegation is anything more than speculation.
The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant.
The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted.""
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8884
"The RIAA loses a precedent-setting case, Interscope v. Rodriguez, in Southern California."
"As the plantiff did not present himself in court, a default judgement ruling was held. The presiding judge, Judge Brewster, shocked the RIAA by not only denying to make a default monetary judgement, but also completing dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.
Judge Brewster is on record as stating:
"Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant.
However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on “information and belief” defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate this allegation is anything more than speculation.
The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant.
The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted and entry of default judgment is not warranted.""
