London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1
542 F. Supp. 2d 153, 2008 WL 887491, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38817 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When deciding whether to enforce a subpoena seeking the identity of an anonymous internet user accused of copyright infringement, a court must balance the plaintiff's need for the information against the user's limited First Amendment right to anonymity. This requires the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of infringement and to narrowly tailor the discovery request to protect the privacy of non-infringing parties.
Facts:
- Several large record companies alleged that numerous individual computer users, mainly college students, were using peer-to-peer file-sharing software to download and disseminate copyrighted music without authorization.
- The record companies' investigator, MediaSentry, acted as an undercover user on these networks, searching for and downloading copyrighted files.
- Through this investigation, MediaSentry obtained the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the computers from which the files were downloaded, along with the date and time of the download, but not the actual identities of the users.
- Many of the users' Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as Boston University, utilize dynamic IP addressing, meaning an IP address is assigned to a user's computer only for a specific session and can be reassigned later.
- The ISPs maintain logs that correlate which user was assigned a specific IP address at a particular time, but they decline to reveal user identities without a court order.
Procedural Posture:
- Several record companies filed approximately forty "John Doe" lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against anonymous defendants.
- The plaintiffs moved for, and the court granted, expedited discovery to serve subpoenas on the defendants' Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to learn their identities.
- The court's order required the ISPs to notify the anonymous defendants, who were given 14 days to file a motion to quash the subpoena before their identities would be disclosed.
- All related "John Doe" cases were consolidated under the lead case, London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Does 1-4.
- Two Doe defendants, whose ISP is Boston University, filed separate motions to quash the subpoena on substantive grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a subpoena seeking to identify anonymous internet users allegedly engaged in copyright infringement require quashing when the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient information for the court to determine if the request is specific enough to avoid identifying non-infringers or to assess the users' expectation of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Gertner, J.
Yes. A subpoena seeking to identify anonymous internet users must be quashed when the court has insufficient information to determine if the discovery request is narrowly tailored to avoid invading the anonymity of potentially non-infringing users and to properly assess the defendants' expectation of privacy. Although the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of copyright infringement by alleging that making files available for download constitutes distribution, their subpoena may be overbroad. Because a single IP address can be associated with multiple users, disclosing a list of all possible users would be an improper fishing expedition. The court cannot properly apply the balancing test without reviewing, in camera, the ISP's terms of service and the list of individuals who match the plaintiffs' information to ensure the request is sufficiently specific.
Analysis:
This case provides a significant framework for adjudicating early-stage discovery disputes in online copyright infringement lawsuits against anonymous "John Doe" defendants. By adopting the Sony Music five-factor test, the court established a heightened standard of scrutiny that balances the copyright holder's right to protect its property against an individual's right to anonymous speech and privacy. The decision tempers the ability of plaintiffs to unmask internet users on mere allegations, requiring judicial oversight through in camera review to ensure discovery is narrowly tailored. This approach seeks to prevent overbroad subpoenas that could chill legitimate online activity and ensnare innocent individuals who may share an IP address with an alleged infringer.
