MP3 Tunes - Answer and Counterclaim
/
Blurb and link to answer/counterclaims at Recording Industry vs. The People
Viacom v. YouTube - Answer
/
Though not a "music case" per se, we venture to link to the Defendants' Answer in Viacom v. YouTube. The outcome of this case, without doubt, will have a tremendous impact on the world of copyright and in turn, the evolution of the music business in the digital age.
In reading the Answer, note that Defendants take the rare step of providing an introduction Rather than merely admit, deny, or d.k.i, Defendants offer a glimpse at their theory of the case.
Note also that Defendants assert twelve affirmative defenses. Although this case is pending in Federal Court in the Southern District of New York, in New York State courts (and especially the Second Department), one sentence affirmative defenses bereft of any factual support are subject to dismissal. Here, the affirmative defenses are one sentence and completely bereft of any factual support. [New York practioners: if you would like case citations, shoot an e-mail to OCTS.) Would Plaintiff's lawyers pursue such a motion, or would it be a waste of time, especially if Defendants can file an Amended Answer?
In reading the Answer, note that Defendants take the rare step of providing an introduction Rather than merely admit, deny, or d.k.i, Defendants offer a glimpse at their theory of the case.
Note also that Defendants assert twelve affirmative defenses. Although this case is pending in Federal Court in the Southern District of New York, in New York State courts (and especially the Second Department), one sentence affirmative defenses bereft of any factual support are subject to dismissal. Here, the affirmative defenses are one sentence and completely bereft of any factual support. [New York practioners: if you would like case citations, shoot an e-mail to OCTS.) Would Plaintiff's lawyers pursue such a motion, or would it be a waste of time, especially if Defendants can file an Amended Answer?
Going Back to Ohio
/
OTCS was in Cleveland for the weekend and was reminded of one of its most popular blog entries regarding a copyright infringement action filed in the Northern District of Ohio against a winery for failure to obtain ASCAP public performance licenses. Following up on this matter, it appears that not much has occurred since initially filed. However, Judge Catherine O'Malley granted defendant winery an extension until February 27, 2008 to file an answer or other responsive pleading.
Generally Rule 12(a)(1)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("...defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint...").
[Freejunket Music et. al v. Ferrante Wine Farm, Inc; case no. 1:08-cv-00155; order issued Feb. 7, 2008]
Generally Rule 12(a)(1)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("...defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint...").
[Freejunket Music et. al v. Ferrante Wine Farm, Inc; case no. 1:08-cv-00155; order issued Feb. 7, 2008]
Capitol v. Multiply Inc. UPDATE
/
A stipulation, dated 1/16/08 and filed 1/17/08, in the Capitol Records v. Multiply Inc. suit pending in the federal District Court, Southern District of New York (Judge Stein), granted defendant Multiply Inc. until February 15, 2008 to answer the complaint. Though an initial pretrial conference remains scheduled for 2/8/08, it is unlikely the public (and OTCS's loyal readers) will have access to any further information on this matter until that time -- unless, a settlement is reached and disclosed, the latter of which is unlikely.
...so stay tuned...
Of note, an electronic copy of the complaint with attached exhibits was too large a file to electronically file, and Judge Stein granted (by endorsed letter dated 1/2/08) Plaintiffs permission to file the exhibits as paper documents only. That is one large complaint!
[Capitol Records Inc.; Caroline Records Inc.; EMI Christian Music Group Inc.; Virgin Records America Inc.; Colgems EMI Music Inc.; EMI April Music Inc.; EMI Blackwood Music; EMI Full Keel Music; EMI Grove Park Music Inc.; EMI Longitude Music; EMI Robbins Catalog Inc.; EMI U Catalog Inc.; EMI Virgin Music Inc.; EMI Virgin Song Inc.; EMI Waterford Music Inc. v. Multiply Inc.; filed 12/18/2007; case CV-11357]
...so stay tuned...
Of note, an electronic copy of the complaint with attached exhibits was too large a file to electronically file, and Judge Stein granted (by endorsed letter dated 1/2/08) Plaintiffs permission to file the exhibits as paper documents only. That is one large complaint!
[Capitol Records Inc.; Caroline Records Inc.; EMI Christian Music Group Inc.; Virgin Records America Inc.; Colgems EMI Music Inc.; EMI April Music Inc.; EMI Blackwood Music; EMI Full Keel Music; EMI Grove Park Music Inc.; EMI Longitude Music; EMI Robbins Catalog Inc.; EMI U Catalog Inc.; EMI Virgin Music Inc.; EMI Virgin Song Inc.; EMI Waterford Music Inc. v. Multiply Inc.; filed 12/18/2007; case CV-11357]
