Case Summary
Items marked as Premium 
are available to registered users. Sign in now for unlimited access.
are available to registered users. Sign in now for unlimited access.
Virgin Records America, Inc. v. Doe, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21701 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2009).
A third party subpoena to a university to disclose the identity of the student using an internet protocol address to share music files was sufficiently specific to override the student’s First Amendment right to anonymity. The student’s argument that the IP address was registered to someone else was a defense that should be raised in his answer or other pleading rather than in an objection to a subpoena.
Record companies filed a copyright infringement action against a John Doe defendant and obtained permission for expedited discovery of the defendant’s identification through a subpoena to the university that provided the internet service over which the defendant allegedly shared music files. Defendant moved to quash the subpoena to his university on the ground that it violated his qualified First Amendment right to anonymous expression over the Internet. Defendant also claimed that he lived in a residence with sixteen other students and had access to multiple live wireless networks while the university IP address that the record companies were tracing was assigned to someone else.
The court agreed that there was a limited First Amendment protection for speech in the form of making music available over the Internet. However, the record companies had met a five-factor test for determining whether the First Amendment should protect the identity of an anonymous defendant. The companies had made a prima facie showing of copyright infringement through sharing of protected music and specifically identified the Internet Protocol address for which they sought identifying information that they would use only to protect their rights under the Copyright Act. Defendant’s contentions that the IP address was registered to someone else and that he otherwise had access to multiple networks at the residence he shared with other students were appropriate for responding to the complaint of the record companies but were not sufficient to defeat the subpoena.
<< Click here to go backRecord companies filed a copyright infringement action against a John Doe defendant and obtained permission for expedited discovery of the defendant’s identification through a subpoena to the university that provided the internet service over which the defendant allegedly shared music files. Defendant moved to quash the subpoena to his university on the ground that it violated his qualified First Amendment right to anonymous expression over the Internet. Defendant also claimed that he lived in a residence with sixteen other students and had access to multiple live wireless networks while the university IP address that the record companies were tracing was assigned to someone else.
The court agreed that there was a limited First Amendment protection for speech in the form of making music available over the Internet. However, the record companies had met a five-factor test for determining whether the First Amendment should protect the identity of an anonymous defendant. The companies had made a prima facie showing of copyright infringement through sharing of protected music and specifically identified the Internet Protocol address for which they sought identifying information that they would use only to protect their rights under the Copyright Act. Defendant’s contentions that the IP address was registered to someone else and that he otherwise had access to multiple networks at the residence he shared with other students were appropriate for responding to the complaint of the record companies but were not sufficient to defeat the subpoena.
