informed the defendant that if he or she did not live or work in Pennsylvania, or visit the state
regularly, he or she might be able to challenge the Pennsylvania court’s jurisdiction over him or
her. Finally, the notice informed the defendant that the record companies were willing to discuss
the possible settlement of their claims with the defendant, that the parties might be able to reach
a settlement agreement without the defendant’s name appearing on the public record, that the
defendant might be asked to disclose his or her identity to the record companies if he or sought to
pursue settlement, and that defendants who sought to settle at the beginning of a case might be
offered more favorable terms by the record companies.^1509
(7) Interscope Records v. Does 1-7In Interscope Records v. Does 1-7,^1510 the court followed the Charter Communications
and Verizon cases in holding that Section 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of subpoenas
against Section 512(a) OSPs who act merely as conduits.^1511 The plaintiffs had sought such a
subpoena against the College of William and Mary, which provided Internet services that the
Doe defendants allegedly used to access a peer-to-peer online media distribution system for the
purpose of downloading and distributing plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.^1512
(8) In re Maximized LivingIn In re Maximized Living, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,^1513 the court ruled that the subpoena
power of Section 512(h) is limited to currently infringing activity and does not reach former
infringing activity that has ceased and can thus no longer be removed or disabled. In this case,
because Google had already taken down the plaintiff’s copyrighted scripts from an Internet blog
hosted by Google, the use of a Section 512(h) subpoena to still seek to obtain the identity of the
user who had posted those scripts was invalid.^1514
- Proposed Limitation of Scope of Shrinkwrap and Clickwrap Licenses
That Did Not Pass
H.R. 3048 contained an interesting and potentially controversial provision that would
have extended the scope of the preemption provisions of the copyright statute to limit certain
provisions common to shrinkwrap and clickwrap license agreements. Specifically, H.R. 3048
would have added the following provision at the end of Section 301(a) of the copyright statute:
(^1509) Order, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Does 1-6, Civ. Action No. 04-1241 (Oct. 13, 2004). The language
of the court’s order, without the notice attached, may be found at 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22673.
(^1510) 494 F. Supp. 2d 388 (E.D. Va. 2007).
(^1511) Id. at 388.
(^1512) Id.
(^1513) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147486 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011).
(^1514) Id. at *3-4, 13-16.