From sidebar of "Recording Industry vs. The People" by Ray Beckerman
(Published here at http://info.riaalawsuits.us/quotations.htm)

"Although Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant Does may question the propriety of joinder after they are identified, it is this Court's experience that an overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse."
-Hon. S. James Otero
Central District of California
August 29, 2007
SONY BMG v. Does 1-5

"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero
District Judge
Central District of California
March 2, 2007
Elektra v. O'Brien

"Plaintiff ... must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement.... However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on "information and belief" Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted...."
-Hon. Rudi M. Brewster
Senior District Judge
Southern District of California
August 17, 2007
Interscope v. Rodriguez

2007 WL 2408484

"[I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined."
-Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk
Magistrate Judge
District of Maine
January 25, 2008
Arista v. Does 1-27
2008 WL 222283

"[W]hen plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005.....Whatever plaintiffs' reasons for the manner in which they have prosecuted this case, it does not appear to be justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law....."
-Hon. Donald C. Ashmanskas
Magistrate Judge
District of Oregon
September 21, 2007
Atlantic v. Andersen
2008 WL 185806

"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks
-Hon. Lee Yeakel
District Judges
Western District of Texas
November 17, 2004
Fonovisa v. Does 1-41

"[N]either Florida’s litigation privilege nor the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine serves as a shield for sham litigation."
-Hon. Richard A. Lazzara
District Judge
Middle District of Florida
September 19, 2007
UMG v. Del Cid

"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer."
-Hon. Lee R. West
District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
February 6, 2007
Capitol v. Foster
2007 WL 1028532

"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr.
District Judge
Eastern District of Virginia
July 12, 2007
Interscope v. Does 1-7
494 F. Supp. 2d 388

"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian “suspension of disbelief” to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member’s Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia
Magistrate Judge
District of New Mexico
May 24, 2007
Capitol v. Does 1-16
2007 WL 1893603

"[T]he inducement rule.... is a sensible one for copyright. We adopt it here, holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.....One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement...."
-Hon. David H. Souter, for the Court
U.S. Supreme Court
June 27, 2005
MGM v. Grokster
545 U.S. 913

"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."
-Hon. David G. Trager
Senior District Judge
Eastern District of New York
November 9, 2006
UMG v. Lindor
2006 WL 3335048

"[D]istributing unlawful copies of a copyrighted work does violate the copyright owner's distribution right and, as a result, constitutes copyright infringement. In order to establish "distribution" of a copyrighted work, a party must show that an unlawful copy was disseminated "to the public." 17 U.S.C. § 106(3); see National Car Rental v. Computer Associates , 991 F.2d 426, 434 (8th Cir. 1993); 2 Nimmer, § 8.11[A] at 8-137."
-Hon. John D. Butzner, Jr.
Fourth Circuit
June 30, 1997
Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
118 F.3d 199