<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Vargas v. BT</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/401/feed</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>The Cost of Bogus Copyright Claims: BT Wins Motion for Attorneys&#039; Fees </title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5832</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;In a decisive victory for defendants beleaguered by baseless copyright infringement claims, U.S. District Court Judge Pauley ruled last week that Plaintiffs Ralph Vargas and Bland- Ricky Roberts must pay Defendants BT and East West Communications $175,000 in attorneys&#039; fees and costs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5832&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5832#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/BT+Order+Granting+Fee+Motion.PDF" length="342155" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:34:07 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Julie Ahrens</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5832 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>BT Responds to Plaintiffs&#039; Opposition to His Fee Motion</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5514</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The briefing on BT&#039;s motion for attorneys&#039; fees is now complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5514&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5514#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Reply+Brief+Redacted+as+E-filed.pdf" length="47867" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:18:37 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Julie Ahrens</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5514 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>BT Moves to Recover Attorneys&#039; Fees and Costs</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5456</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;In May, BT secured a complete victory over Plaintiffs Ralph Vargas and Bland-Ricky Roberts when the court &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/BT+SJ+Order.pdf&quot;&gt;granted &lt;/a&gt; his summary judgment motion and dismissed Plaintiffs&#039; case in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5456&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5456#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Memo+in+supp+of+fee+motion+%28redacted+efiled+copy%29.pdf" length="87251" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:04:07 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Julie Ahrens</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5456 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Victory for BT!</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5400</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;After a very long saga, BT has been vindicated in his fight againt New York Musician Ralph Vargas and Vargas&#039;s producer, Bland-Ricky Roberts, who together alleged that BT copied a drumbeat from Vargas&#039;s album.  Today, the Court held Vargas and Roberts presented no credible evidence that BT had done so, granted summary judgment in BT&#039;s favor, and dismissed the case in its entirety.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read the decision &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/BT+SJ+Order.pdf&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This case is about much more than whether one artist copied a particular drumbeat from another.  Basic drumbeats and rythm patterns should not be subject to copyright protection at all.  If one musician can sue another and impose hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs just because one short drumbeat happens to sound a bit like another, that threatens creative freedom in a profound way.  We hope this discourages Vargas and others from pursuing spurious claims like this.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5400&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5400#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/BT+SJ+Order.pdf" length="505318" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 16:06:42 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Anthony Falzone</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5400 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Plaintiffs&#039; Motion to Have the Court Reconsider Its Order to Have BT Recreate &quot;Aparthenonia&quot; and BT&#039;s Opposition to that Motion.</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5043</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;After the Court reserved judgment on BT&#039;s summary judgment motion pending his recreation of &quot;Aparthenonia&quot; from scratch, plaintiffs moved to have the Court reconsider its decision under Local Rule 6.3. Plaintiffs argue that the Court did not have the authority to ask BT to recreate &quot;Aparthenonia&quot; and that in doing so the Court misconstrued or ignored the applicable law. But the motion (full text available &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Motion+for+Reconsideration.pdf&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) fails to explain why the Court wouldn&#039;t have the authority to ask for evidence which would be dispositive of the cause of action and also fails to raise any issues that were not fully explored in the summary judgment briefs and oral argument.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5043&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5043#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/378">intellectual property</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:15:03 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Josh Davis</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5043 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Plaintiffs&#039; Opposition to Summary Judgment and BT&#039;s Response</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5042</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Plaintiffs&#039; filed their opposition to BT&#039;s motion for summary judgment on October 12, 2006 (available &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Opposition+to+MSJ.pdf&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;). Instead of arguing the issue of access, plaintiffs abandoned that argument and staked their entire case on the theory that &quot;Aparthenonia&quot; and &quot;Bust Dat Groove&quot; are so &quot;strikingly similar&quot; that access (and copying) can be inferred. To prevail under this theory, plaintiffs would have to show that the works are &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;so&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; similar that the second work could only be created by copying the first--that the similarities between the two works &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;preclude even the possibility of independent creation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5042&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5042#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/378">intellectual property</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:36:33 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Josh Davis</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5042 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>BT Moves for Summary Judgment</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5041</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;On September 25, 2006, the Clinic and co-counsel at Kirkland Ellis moved for summary judgment on behalf of BT. The primary thrust of the motion centers on plaintiffs&#039; failure to show any plausible theory of access to plaintiffs&#039; work. Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing copying in order to succeed on their infringement action and--absent direct evidence of such copying--must be able to show access to that work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5041&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5041#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/378">intellectual property</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:48:24 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Josh Davis</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5041 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Group picture with BT at the Red Devil Lounge</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5039</link>
 <description>&lt;div style=&quot;width: 195px&quot; class=&quot;image-attach-teaser&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/node/5039&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/images/bt_group_md.thumbnail.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;David Olson, roughly left to right: BT, Julie Ahrens, and Clinic students Eric Chan and Shireen Barday&quot; title=&quot;David Olson, roughly left to right: BT, Julie Ahrens, and Clinic students Eric Chan and Shireen Barday&quot;  class=&quot;image thumbnail&quot; width=&quot;195&quot; height=&quot;146&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don&#039;t know if a picture deserves its own post, but I  guess I&#039;m going to find out.  Here&#039;s a group shot from last week&#039;s BT concert at the Red Devil Lounge in SF that &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5034&quot;&gt;Shireen blogged about earlier&lt;/a&gt;.  I have been a BT fan since high school, so I was pretty psyched.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My full set of pictures from the event can be found on my Flickr page at:&lt;br /&gt;
htt&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5039&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5039#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:26:22 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Eric Chan</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5039 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>BT: Case Summary</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5037</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The Clinic represents Brian Transeau against claims of copyright infringement in the Vargas v. Pfizer litigation in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 04 CV 9772 (WHP)).  Mr. Transeau is an accomplished musician and &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Transeau&quot;&gt;a pioneer of the trance music genre&lt;/a&gt; who is better known by his stage name, &lt;a href=&quot;http://btmusic.com/&quot;&gt;BT&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5037&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5037#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/378">intellectual property</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:08:59 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Eric Chan</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5037 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>BT Tours With Thomas Dolby</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5034</link>
 <description>&lt;div style=&quot;width: 195px&quot; class=&quot;image-attach-teaser&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/node/5034&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/images/bt_acoustic.thumbnail.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Eric Chan&amp;#039;s amazing photo of BT from the show&quot; title=&quot;Eric Chan&amp;#039;s amazing photo of BT from the show&quot;  class=&quot;image thumbnail&quot; width=&quot;195&quot; height=&quot;260&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On November 27th, BT and Thomas Dolby opened their “Sonic Duel for Virtual Supremacy” Tour at Red Devil in San Francisco.  BT was kind enough to invite us, and the show was fantastic.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;BT performed “This Binary Universe,” which you can listen to online at: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thisbinaryuniverse.com/&quot;&gt;thisbinaryuniverse.com&lt;/a&gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thomas Dolby performed an eclectic mix of songs, including a recent rendition of an old ditty adapted to tell the story of Dolby’s copyright infringement suit against K-Fed, whose recent song &lt;a href=&quot;”&quot; fuseaction=&quot;user.viewprofile&amp;amp;friendid=43344273”&quot;&gt; “America’s Most Wanted” &lt;/a&gt; sampled Mobb Deep’s “Got It Twisted,” which had sampled Dolby’s “She Blinded Me With Science.”  Although Mobb Deep’s use of the song was licensed by Dolby, K-Fed’s wasn&#039;t.  (K-Fed settled.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5034&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5034#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/vargas-v-bt">Vargas v. BT</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:10:12 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Shireen A. Barday</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5034 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
