Text of Arista v Doe

Defendant “Doe 3,” whose identity is not known to plaintiffs Arista Records LLC et al., appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Glenn T. Suddaby, Judge, rejecting Doe 3’s objections to the denial by United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece of Doe 3’s motion (originally brought by other anonymous defendants) to quash a subpoena served on his Internet service provider to obtain information sufficient to disclose his identity. The magistrate judge ruled that defendants’ qualified First Amendment right of anonymity was outweighed by, inter alia, plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants were downloading and/or distributing music over the Internet in violation of plaintiffs’ copyrights and plaintiffs’ need for the information in order to enforce their rights. On appeal, Doe 3 contends principally that the allegations in the Complaint are not sufficient to overcome his First Amendment right of anonymity; in addition, he contends that the reference of his motion to the magistrate judge and the district judge’s review of the magistrate judge’s decision were procedurally flawed. Finding no merit in Doe 3’s contentions, we affirm.

Arista v Doe

Filed under: Copyright

One response to “Text of Arista v Doe”

  1. tostien says:

    Makes sense… why shouldn’t you know who the other (adult) party is to a suit? I understand defendant’s desire for privacy, but then again, I’ve been on the plaintiff’s side and I’ve seen the amount of law breaking things like tortuous interference with a lawful business while hiding behind domain name proxy services and so forth.

    – Michael Feigin