|
Tech Law Journal |
 |
| News, records, and analysis of legislation, litigation, and regulation affecting the computer, internet, communications and information technology sectors | |
|
|
|
| |||||
|
BRIAN L. BUCKLEY, SBN 116705 Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Defendant Free Republic (hereinafter "Defendant") answers Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages for Copyright Infringement (hereinafter "Complaint"). 1. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Defendant admits that the Court has personal jurisdiction over it and denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 2. 3. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every such allegations. [begin page 2] 4. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every such allegations. 5. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every such allegations. 6. Defendant admits that its principal place of business is Fresno, California and that its mailing address is P.O. Box 9771, Fresno, California and admits that it maintains a website called freerepublic or freerepublic.com, but otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 7. Defendant admits that Electronic Orchard has its principal place of business in Fresno, California and that it has a mailing address of P.O. Box 9771, Fresno, California. Defendant further admits that Electronic Orchard is engaged in the business of internet website development but otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Defendant admits that Jim Robinson is an individual living in Fresno, California and that at all relevant times he has owned and controlled both Electronic Orchard and Free Republic, as alleged in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 and on that basis denies each and every such allegation. 10. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 and on that basis denies each and every such allegation. 11. In answer to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that a website is a specific location on the World Wide Web identified by an unique address known as a Universal Resource Locator but lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth as to the remaining allegations and on that basis denies each and every such allegation. 12. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 and on that basis denies each and every such allegation. 13. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the [begin page 3] truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 and on that basis denies each and every such allegation. 14. In answer to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that it operates a website at the URL "freerepublic.com" but denies each and every other allegation therein. 15. In answer to Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that numerous articles from various sources have been and are copied onto and posted at Defendant’s website and that various methods are available for viewers to access those articles, but Defendant denies each and every other allegation therein. 16. In answer to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that numerous articles from various sources have been and are copied onto and posted at Defendant’s website and that various methods are available for viewers to access those articles, but Defendant denies each and every other allegation therein. 17. In answer to Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that it operates a website at the URL "freerepublic.com" but denies each and every other allegation therein. 18. In answer to Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that it operates a website at the URL "freerepublic.com" but denies each and every other allegation therein. 19. In answer to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation therein. 20. In answer to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation therein. 21. In answer to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation therein. 22. In answer to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein, and on that basis denies each and every such allegation. 23. In answer to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained therein. 24. In answer to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendant’s stop copying and publicly displaying Plaintiff’s copyrighted content and [begin page 4] that Defendants have refused, but Defendant denies each and every other allegation contained therein. 25. In answer to Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained therein. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Federal Copyright Infringement) 26. In answer to Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates by reference its answers previously set forth in response to Paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive. 27. In answer to Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation contained therein. 28. In answer to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation contained therein. 29. In answer to Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation contained therein. 30. In answer to Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained therein. 31. In answer to Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained therein. 32. In answer to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained therein. 33. In answer to Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained therein. 34. In answer to Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained therein. /// FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [begin page 5] The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted by virtue of the failure to include indispensible parties. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Factors other than Defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct caused some or all of Plaintiff’s alleged damages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Laches. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Plaintiffs’ waiver. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs did not exercise due care and did not act reasonably to protect themselves or to mitigate any damages that they may have sustained by reason of Defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintffs Complaint is barred by the fair use exception to the Federal Copyright Statute. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays judgment as follows:
|
|
