Spring Break
RIAA to sue 16 Drexel Students
Late-breaking news
By: Nancy Lan
Issue date: 8/10/07 Section: News
Originally published: 8/10/07 at 3:49 AM EST
Last update: 8/10/07 at 3:48 AM EST
Originally published: 8/10/07 at 3:49 AM EST
Last update: 8/10/07 at 3:48 AM EST
- Page 1 of 1
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed 16 copyright infringement lawsuits against Drexel University network users Aug. 9 on behalf of major record companies, according to an RIAA press release.
Initially, the RIAA announced a pre-litigation period on March 3, and the lawsuits announced Aug. 9 were filed against individuals who did not settle during that period.
Following the March 3 announcement, the individuals could have either hired a lawyer to defend them in federal court, or paid the RIAA $3,600 to settle the case, Laure Bachich Ergin, RIAA's senior associate general counsel and managing attorney, told The Triangle in a March 16 article.
The press release wrote the unsettled cases were "either because the university failed to forward a pre-litigation letter to the student or because the record industry's initial settlement offer of a discounted settlement was ignored."
The RIAA filed "John Doe" lawsuits in federal district court that cite the 16 individuals for "illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via peer-to-peer services such as LimeWire," the press release wrote.
The RIAA has so far identified each individual through his or her Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the "John Doe" lawsuits allow RIAA members to subpoena the University for the names that correspond to the IP addresses.
RIAA representatives will then contact each individual directly to settle the claims for a greater sum than requested during the pre-litigation process. However, if an individual does not want to settle, RIAA members will re-file the original complaint and proceed with the case using the individual's name instead of his or her IP address.
Since 2005, the RIAA has filed approximately 36 lawsuits against individuals who engage in illegal file sharing of copyrighted materials, according to The Triangle's March 16 article.
Initially, the RIAA announced a pre-litigation period on March 3, and the lawsuits announced Aug. 9 were filed against individuals who did not settle during that period.
Following the March 3 announcement, the individuals could have either hired a lawyer to defend them in federal court, or paid the RIAA $3,600 to settle the case, Laure Bachich Ergin, RIAA's senior associate general counsel and managing attorney, told The Triangle in a March 16 article.
The press release wrote the unsettled cases were "either because the university failed to forward a pre-litigation letter to the student or because the record industry's initial settlement offer of a discounted settlement was ignored."
The RIAA filed "John Doe" lawsuits in federal district court that cite the 16 individuals for "illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via peer-to-peer services such as LimeWire," the press release wrote.
The RIAA has so far identified each individual through his or her Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the "John Doe" lawsuits allow RIAA members to subpoena the University for the names that correspond to the IP addresses.
RIAA representatives will then contact each individual directly to settle the claims for a greater sum than requested during the pre-litigation process. However, if an individual does not want to settle, RIAA members will re-file the original complaint and proceed with the case using the individual's name instead of his or her IP address.
Since 2005, the RIAA has filed approximately 36 lawsuits against individuals who engage in illegal file sharing of copyrighted materials, according to The Triangle's March 16 article.
Dont Let Our Campus Be Abused
posted 8/10/07 @ 1:01 PM EST
The RIAA's use of "John Doe" legislation has come under attack as it is illegal. The request to "settle" is a bullying tactic that should be outlawed since they have very little legal ground to stand on to prove that an individual was the infringing party, even if the network connection is for their computer. (Continued…)