London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe

1 542 F.Supp. 2d 153 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Peer-to-peer software exists to create decentralized networks of individual computer users. The software allows the users to communicate directly with one another, rather than routing their transmissions through a central server -- thus the term 'peer-to-peer' architecture, as opposed to 'client-server.' The users in a peer-to-peer network can remain relatively anonymous. Because communications between two computers on a peer-to-peer network can take place directly, without passing through a central network server, such transactions are not easily observable by a third party. Peer-to-peer users can control what information they display to the world. Anyone who has the requisite software and internet connection can participate in open peer-to-peer networks. In many instances, the files transferred are electronic versions of copyrighted music or video files. Ps allege that Ds have taken part in just such a file transfer. It is easy for an investigator to uncover information about such file transfers that including the date and time at which the files were downloaded and the IP number of the sending computer. It can also include the user's name, which is usually pseudonymous. Ps have the IP number of the sending computer. This number serves as a locator declaring the place of a particular piece of electronic equipment so that electronic data may be sent to it. Very few personal computer users have a specific, set IP address, called a 'static' address. Many use their computers to connect to a network provided by their ISP (Internet Service Provider), which uses a certain range of IP addresses -- say, all of the numbers between 168.122.1.x to 168.122.100.x. The ISP assigns an address within its range to the user's computer for the user's session, allocating the numbers within its range on an as-needed basis. This process is known as 'dynamic' addressing. Thus, Ps' task of discovering the identity of a particular infringer is difficult. The IP address that they have noted as belonging to a particular user's computer may be assigned to a different user's computer. The range in which the IP address is assigned may reveal the user's ISP. ISPs generally keep logs of which IP address is assigned to which user -- although it may purge those logs after a certain period of time. Ps seek discovery to place their list of IP addresses side-by-side with the ISP's user logs to determine who was using the IP address at the moment of the alleged infringement. The ISPs, particularly colleges and universities, appropriately decline to reveal the identities of their users without a court order. Ps have brought these 'John Doe' lawsuits and seek discovery in order to determine the real identities of Ds. The Court has ordered that the ISP provide the individual users with notice of the lawsuit and a short statement of some of their rights before revealing their identities to Ps so that Ds may oppose discovery. Three Ds have elected to fight the subpoena. Ds assert that Ps have failed to state a sufficient claim for copyright infringement. Ds argued that Ps' copyright extended only to actual distributions of tangible objects and the act of making files available for sharing did not count as distributing the files.