Charter Communications Inc Subpoena Enforcement Matter v. Sbc Afma’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Request. A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner’s behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection. (2) Contents of request. The request may be made by filing with the clerk— (A) a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A); (B) a proposed subpoena; and (C) a sworn declaration to the effect that the purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · 494 F. Supp. 2d 388 - Interscope Records v. DOES 1-7

2. “the new generation of P2P file sharing programs allow an internet- user to access the files located on other computers through the internet. By utilizing the new technology, an internet user can search directly the MP3 file libraries of other users, with no web site being involved because the transferred files are not stored on the computers of the ISP providing the peer-to-peer users with internet access, [citations omitted]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 367 F. Supp. 2d 945 - Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. University of North Carolina

3. ““ § 512(h) is structurally linked to the storage functions of an ISP and not to its transmission functions, such as those listed in § 512(a).” ... [I]t is the province of Congress, not the courts, to decide whether to rewrite the DMCA “in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture” and “accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 494 F. Supp. 2d 388 - Interscope Records v. DOES 1-7