Electronic Frontier Fo.

ndatlon
'0.1' ,..:C C CCc

February 2, 2004
Via Fax (212) 805-7906
Hon. Denny Chin
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United StatesCourthouse
500 PearlStreet,Room 1020
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re: 1:04-cv-00473-DC,SonyMusic Entertainment,Inc. et al v. Does 1-40
Dear JudgeChin

Pursuantto our telephonediscussionswith chambers,Amici Public Citizen, Electronic

Frontier Foundationandthe AmericanCivil LibertiesUnion submit this letter concerning
Plaintiffs' exparte applicationto servediscoveryseekingthe identity of the unnamed
defendants.This is an action for copyright infringementin which multiple music companiesseek
injunctive relief, damagesand feesand costsagainst40 anonymousand completelyunrelated
individuals. Amici presentthis letter to arguethat, notwithstandingthe seriousviolations of law
allegedin the complaint,plaintiffs havenot madea sufficient factual showingto warrant
discoveryinto the identitiesof personswho havecommunicatedanonymouslyover the Internet,
including a showingthat thereis personaljurisdiction of eachof the 40 defendantsand that they
areproperlyjoined togetherin one action.Finally, we arguethat, in the eventsomediscoveryis
to be allowed, certainadditionalconditionsshouldbe imposed.
Exhibit A to the Complaintspecifiesthe InternetProtocol("IP") addressthat eachDoe
allegedlyusedfor posting songson particulardates(rangingfrom JunethroughDecember2003),
identifying betweenfive andten songsfor eachdefendant.Plaintiffs seekto imposeliability on
eachof the 40 individuals individually - thereareno allegationsof joint or severalliability, and
no claims for relief in the alternativeagainstany of them.Thereis alsono claim that the
infringers actedpursuantto any commonplan or conspiracy,or that their liability arisesout of a
commontransactionor occurrence.At most,it is allegedthat therehavebeena seriesof
instancesin which eachindividual defendanthasusedthe facilities of a single InternetService
Provider("ISP"), Cablevision,to displaytheir respectivedatafiles on the Internet.
1. Balancing the Right to Anonymous SpeechAgainst the Need for Disclosure.
Plaintiffs arecorrectthat it is commonplacefor plaintiffs to be alloweddiscoveryat the outsetof
a lawsuit to identify otherwiseunknownpersonsallegedto have committeda legal wrong. But
thereis a significant differencebetweenthis caseand the variouscasesplaintiffs cite on page5
of their brief, whereprisonersor arresteessoughtto identify the prison or police officers who
allegedlybeator otherwisemistreatedthem.The defendantshere areaccusedof having engaged
in wrongful but anonymousspeechon the Internet,andbecausethe First Amendmentprotects
the right to speakanonymously,a subpoenafor their namesand addressesis subjectto a
qualified privilege. The distribution, displayor perfonnanceof musicaland other creativeworks
is, of course,speechprotectedby the First Amendment,andthe SupremeCourt'srulings on
anonymousspeechcommonlycite literary pseudonymsasan exampleof our strongtradition of
anonymousspeech.Although plaintiffs will arguethat thereis no First Amendmentright to
infringe a copyright, at this stageof the caseno suchinfringementhasbeenestablish~ it is only
alleged.Justas in other caseswherediscoveryseeksinformation that may be privileg~ the
Court must considerthe privilege beforeauthorizingdiscovery.
The tensionbetweenthis importantqualified privilege and the interestof a plaintiff who
hasallegedwrongdoingin obtaininginfonnation neededto pursuelitigation over alleged
454 ShotwellStreet . San Frandsco, CA 94110 USA ..

0 +14154369333 0+14154369993 Owww.eff.org 0 Info@eff.org

Hon. Denny Chin
Page2

wrongdoing,hasbeenconsideredby a numberof federaland statecourtsover the pastseveral

years.Thesecourtshavewrestledwith the fact that, at the outsetof the litigation, the plaintiff has
doneno more than allegewrongdoing,and a privilege is generallynot consideredto be
overcomeby mereallegations.They have further recognizedthat a seriouschilling effect on
anonymousspeechwould result if Internetspeakersknew they could be identified by persons
who merely allegewrongdoing,without necessarilyhaving any intention of carrying through
with actua1litigation.Indeed,plaintiffs' representatives
haverepeatedlytold the pressthat they
do not necessarilywant to pursuelitigation againstall anonymousfile sharerswhoseidentities
they obtain.
In order to balancetheseinterests,the courtshave drawnby analogyfrom the balancing
testthat many courts,including the SecondCircuit, haveadoptedin decidingwhetherto compel
the disclosureof anonymoussourcesor donors.Careyv. Bume, 492 F.2d 631 (D.C. Cir. 1974);
Cervantesv. Time,464 F.2d 986 (8thCir. 1972);Baker v. F&F Investment,470 F.2d 778,783
(2d Cir.1972).Accordingly, the courtsthat haveconsideredthis questionhave adopteda several-
part balancingtest to decidewhetherto compelthe identification of an anonymousInternet
speakerso that he may be servedwith process.
This test was most fully articulatedin Dendrite v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J.App. 2001),
which remainsthe only appellateopinion in the countryto facethe questionsquarely.Dendrite
requiresthe would-beplaintiff to (I) usethe Internetto notify the accusedof the pendencyof the
identification proceedingand to explain how to presenta defense;(2) quoteverbatimthe
statementsallegedlyactionable;(3) allegeall elementsof the causeof action; (4) present
evidencesupportingthe claim of violation, and(5) showthe court that, on balanceand in the
particularsof the case,the right to identify the speakeroutweighsthe First Amendmentright of
anonymity.
Severalother courtshave similarly set forth requirementsof notice,review of the
complaint,andpresentationof argumentand evidencebeforean ISP will be compelledto
identify an Internetspeaker.For example,in Melvin v. Doe, 49 Pa.D.&C.4th449 (2000), appeal
quashed,789 A.2d 696, 2001 Pa.Super.330 (200I), appealreinstated,836 A.2d 42 (pa. 2003),
the trial court allowed an anonymousdefendantto presentevidenceand seeksummaryjudgment,
orderingdisclosureonly after finding genuineissuesof material fact requiring trial. In reversing
the denial of the defendant'sinterlocutoryappeal,the PennsylvaniaSupremeCourt discussedat
length the conflict betweenthe right to speakanonymouslyand the plaintiff's right to identify a
potential defendant,andremandedfor considerationof whetherevidenceof actualdamagehad
to be presentedbeforethe right of anonymousspeechcould be disregarded.836 A.2d at 47-50.
..
Similarly, in La SocieteMetro Cash& Carry France v. Time WarnerCable2003 WL
22962857(Conn. Super.),the court applieda balancingtest and consideredevidencethat
allegedlydefamatorystatementswere falseand causedinjury before decidingto allow discovery
concerningthe identity of the speaker.In ColumbiaIns. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185FRD 573
(N.D.Cal. 1999),the court requiredthe plaintiff to makea good faith effort to communicatewith
the anonymousdefendantsandprovide themwith notice that the suit had beenfiled against
them, thus assuringthem an opportunityto defendtheir anonymity,and also compelledthe
plaintiff to demonstratethat it had viable claims againstsuchdefendants.Id. at 579. And in Re
Subpoenato America Online, 52 VaCir 26, 34 (Fairfax 2000), rev'd on other grounds, 542 SE2d
377 (Va 2001),the court requiredintroductionof the allegedlyactionableInternetposting, and
requiredthat it be "satisfiedby the pleadingsor evidencesupplied" that the subpoenaingparty
Hon. Denny Chin
Page3

had a legitimatebasisto contendthat it wasthe victim of actionableconduct,"and. . . the

subpoenaed identity infonnation [mustbe] centrallyneededto advancethat claim.l
It is difficult to considerthe possibility that the filing of the Complaintby theserespected
partiesmight not havebeenprecededby a meticulousinvestigation.On the other hand,it is not
difficult for the plaintiffs to presentsolid evidence,including an affidavit by the individual who
examinedthe files availablefor downloadfrom eachdefendant'scomputer,listenedto the files,
verified that they were copyrightedsongs,andcheckedto be surethat thosecopyrightswere
registeredand are ownedby the plaintiffs, andto list in the affidavit or in an affidavit attachment
the songsthat the Doe madeavailablefor download.The Whiteheadaffidavit in this caseis long
on socialpolicy and very short on firSt personavermentsaboutthe individual defendantsin this
case.Becausethis casewill set a standardfor all plaintiffs who seekto identify anonymous
Internetspeakersbasedon claims of copyright infringement,including thosewho are less
scrupulousand ethical thantheseplaintiffs, the Court shouldnot authorizea subpoenauntil such
individualized evidenceis presentedabouteachDoe.
2. Joinder. Plaintiffs haveviolated Rule 20, F.R. Civ. P., by joining all 43 defendantsin
a single action. The SecondCircuit requiresthat, for defendantsto bejoined in the samelawsuit,
they must be relatedto each other. In NassauCy.Ass'n of Ins. Agentsv. Aetna Life & Cas.,497
F.2d 1151(2d Cir. 1974),the court refusedto allow a classaction against164insurance
companiesaccusedon antitrustviolations becausetherewas "no allegationof conspiracyor
other concertof action." Similarly, in Pergo v. A//oc, 262 F. Supp.2d122, 127-128(S.D.N.Y.
2003),the court refusedto allow a plaintiff to join in the sameaction different defendantsthat
had allegedlyviolated the samepatents,because"there areno allegationsof any cooperativeor
collusive relationshipbetweenthe two setsof defendants."Another trial court in the Second
Circuit similarly refusedto allow suit against104defendantswho usedalteredconvertersto steal
televisionprogrammingfrom plaintiff's cableboxes,"in the absenceof any claim that the
defendantsconspiredor actedjointly." Te/emediaCo. v. Antidonni, 179F.RD. 75, 76 (D. Conn.
1998).
Our concernthat comersmight be cut if hundredsof otherwiseunrelateddefendantsare
joined in a single action is heightenec1by the mannerin which plaintiffs have soughtleaveto
pursuediscoveryin this case.Plaintiffs' affidavit attacheshundredsof pagesconcerningthe
music files madeavailableby threeof the 40 defendantsandtells the Court that although
comparableevidencecould be madeavailablewith respectto eachof the other defendants,it
would be too burdensometo do so. However,althoughthe courtsexist to implementbroadand
importantpublic policies,they do so by meting out individual justice. To be sure,it is more
convenientto presentevidenceaboutonly a few of the accusedbeforeobtaining discoveryabout
all of them.but if it is importantenoughto sueall of them,it shouldbe important enoughto
presentsufficient evidenceto justify discoveryidentifying eachone of them.
In a highly analogouscontext,severaldistrict courtshaverefusedto allow the DirecTV
companyto suehundredsof otherwiseunrelatedindividuals for using "pirate accessboxes" to
obtain satellite signalswithout paying for them! Stealingsatellitesignalsis at leastas

I The argwnent for a balancing test is more fully developed at http://www.citizen.ofg/

docurnents/Mel
vin%202.pdf.
2 The casesare collectedat the web pagehttp://www.directvdefense.ofg/files/
(seecaption
"Severance").Accord Movie Systemsv. Abel, 99 F.R.D. 129(D. Minn. 1983)(denyingjoinder of
1,798defendantswho had allegedlyall infringed the sametelevisiondistributor'sbroadcasts
HOD. Denny Chin
Page 4

reprehensibleasmaking music files availablefor download,but thesedistrict judges refusedto

be stampededby claims of convenienceandneedfor immediateaction into allowing all
defendantsto bejoined in one action'for the administrationof massjustice. The sameprinciple
appliedto the accusedcopyright infringers in this case.
3. PersonalJurisdiction. One of the showingsthat plaintiffs havefailed to make with
respectto most of the defendantsis that the Court haspersonaljurisdiction of eachof the 40
defendants.Under the sliding scaleor "Zippo" analysisthat hasbeenadoptedby the federal
courtsfor Internetjurisdiction, (namedafter Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com,952 F. Supp.
1119(W.D. Pa. 1997»,defendantswho passivelypost information on the Internetfor othersto
examineand copy are not subjectto personaljurisdiction basedon their Internetpostings,while
defendantswhoseInternetsitesarecommercially"interactive," in the sensethat they usetheir
sitesto engagein businesstransactions,are subjectto being suedin any statein which a
substantialnumberof businesstransactionsoccur.Along this continuum,the greaterthe degree
of commercialinteractivity, the greaterthe liability for suit in a foreignjurisdiction. E.g., ALS
Scanv. Digital ServiceConsultants,293 F.3d 707 (4thCir. 2002);NeogenCorp. v. Neo Gen
&reening, 282 F.3d 883 (6thCir. 2002); Mink v. AAAA Development,190F3d 333 (5thCir.
1999). The SecondCircuit hasneverexpresslyadoptedthis sliding scaleanalysis,but several
decisionsin this District haveadoptedit.3 Moreover,in BensusanRestaurantCorp. v. King,
126F.3d 25 (2nd Cir. 1997),the court of appealsrefusedto find that a website that infringed the
trademarkof a New York cafeowner constitutedtortious action in New York underthe state
long-armstatute.
The defendantsin this casedo not havewebsites,but their computersare allegedto be
functioning in a manner comparable to a website - they have opened a section of their personal
computersto the Internetin a mannerthat pennits otherpersonswith personalcomputersto
obtain files storedon thosecomputersanddownloadthem without charge.Therefore,defendants
cannotbe found at the "commercially interactive" end of the sliding scale,and the mere fact that
the dataon their computerscanbe accessedby othersand downloadedin New York is not a
sufficient basisfor subjectingthem to suit here.
Moreover,althoughthe Complaintallegesandthe WhiteheadAffidavit aversthat the IP
numbersthat eachof the defendantsis allegedto haveusedto post infringing material canbe
tracedto a single ISP, Cablevision,which "can be found" in New York, standardtools for
tracing the InternetProtocol addresses, which were readily availableto Plaintiffs beforethey
filed suit, indicatethat many of the 40 defendantsdo not residein the SouthernDistrict of New
York.4 Accordingly, on the faceof the complaint,it appearsthat many of the defendantsarenot

because,"althoughtherewere commonpracticesandperhapscommonquestionsof law," the

independentdefendantshad not actedjointly).
3 In re Ski Train Fire, 2003 WL 22909153(S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("It is well settledthat a court must
examine the nature and quality of a defendant'sactivity on its website to detennine whether
jurisdiction is appropriatein New York."); Citigroup v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d549
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (endorsingZippo cOntinuumand finding personaljurisdiction basedon highly
interactive,commercialwebsiteon which NY customerscould apply for loans and chat with a
lending representative);K.C.P.L., Inc. v. Nash, 1998 WL 823657 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (endorsing
Zippo continuum and declining to find personaljurisdiction over defendantwho merely owned
domainnameReaction.com).
4 Amici canpresentanaffidavitdescribing
thesestandard
tracingtechniques
andwhatthey
revealaboutthe probablelocation of the 40 defendantsat the court's request.The plaintiffs
Hon. Denny Chin
Page 5

subjectto jurisdiction in New York. Thereis no basisfor this Court to compelthe ISP to identify
defendantsof whom the Court doesnot havepersonaljurisdiction. Accordingly, if any
subpoenasare to be issued,they shouldonly requireCablevisionto specify the statesin which
eachdefendantresides,so that Plaintiffs canrefile this action againstsuchindividuals in the
properjurisdictions. .
4. Procedure for Subpoenas.Evenassumingthat the Court concludesthat it should
allow someor all of the discoveryrequestedby plaintiffs, we suggestthat the Court better ensure
that the Doeshavea realistic opportunityto object if they chooseto do so. While we applaud
plaintiffs for recognizingthat an ISP shouldbe allowed sufficient time to notify its subscribers
that their identifies are at issue,so that, if they choose,the Doescanoffer evidenceor argument
in defenseof their anonymityunderthe Dendrite standard.Pl. Mem. at 7 n4. We question,
however,whetherfifteen daysfrom the dateof the subpoenais a sufficient amountof time to
allow eachdefendantto receivethe requisitenotice from the ISP and to allow that defendant,
particularly a defendantwho may be locatedoutsideNew York, to obtain an attorneywho is
licensedto practicein this District, and to allow that attorneyto preparea motion to quashif one
canbejustified. We suggestthat the Court addressthis issuein its order,by directing the ISP to
provide notice within sevendaysof its receiptof the subpoenato eachpersonandto allow the
defendantsfourteendays from the time notice was receivedto file a motion to quash.
In urging suchadditionaltime, we arenot insensitiveto plaintiffs' concernsaboutthe
needfor immediateaction lest information containedin the ISP's electronicrecords,showing
which of its customersusedwhich IP numbersat which times. We suggestthat the Court require
the ISPsto preservethat information pendingthis Court's ruling on whetherit may pursue
discovery,and,if a subpoenais served,pendingdispositionof any timely filed motion to quash.
. CONCLUSION
Amici respectfully request that the motion for expediteddiscovery be consideredand
resolvedin accordancewith the principles setforth above.
R~fu\ly submitted,
/j~) ~j1V", .A;~ '-tor ftJ~.'t~J.".
Paul Alan Levy (DC Bar No. 946400) Wendy Seltzer (WS-4188) ~ ~~ ~,,*.'\.
CharlotteGarden Cindy Cohn
Public Citizen Litigation Group 454 Shotwell Street
-
1600 20thStreet,N.W . SanFrancisco,CA 94110
Washington,D.C. 20009 Telephone:(415) 436-9333
(202) 588-1000 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993
Attorneys for Public Citizen Attorneysfor ElectronicFrontier Foundation
ChristopherA. Hansen
Aden J. Fine
AmericanCivil Liberties Union
125Broad Street
New York, NY 1004-2400
(212) 549-2500
(212) 549-2651(fax)
Attorneys for American Civil Libertl--es

themselvesobliquely acknowledgethatjurisdiction may not be properfor all of the 40

defendants.Pl. Motion, footnote4.
HOD. Denny Chin
Page 6

cc: J. ChristopherJensen
JasonDavid Sanders
Cowan,Liebowitz & Latman,P.C
1133Avenueof the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 575-0671(fax)

JonathanD. Schwartz
ExecutiveVice Presidentand GeneralCounsel
CablevisionSystemsCorp.
1111StewartAvenue
Bethpage,NY 11714-3581
(516) 803-1129(fax)