<b>Decision of Note:</b><b>Foreign Website Subject to DC Jurisdiction</b>

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that a company based in Madrid, Spain, was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia by maintaining a Web site that enabled DC residents to download unlicensed sound recordings. Arista Records Inc. v. Sakfield Holding Co. S.L., 03-1474. The ruling provides a liberal view for finding both specific and general jurisdiction over Internet defendants.

In this suit for copyright infringement, among other things, the court first found that the affidavit of one DC resident who had used the defendant's puretunes.com was sufficient to establish that the defendant was subject to specific jurisdiction by “transacting any business” in the district. On the issue of general jurisdiction, the court noted that it wasn't necessary for DC residents to have subscribed to puretunes.com. Rather, the Web site's offer of an initial 25 free tunes to users amounted to “active solicitation.” “Whether or not defendant's advertising plan was targeted at District of Columbia residents specifically, by signing up District residents to this free trial period defendant entered a business relationship with District residents,” the district court emphasized. “The 24 hour availability of downloadable files and transfer of files to those customers in the District is exactly the sort of purposeful, active, systematic, and continuous activity in the District of Columbia that constitutes 'doing business.' ”

But the court was hindered in determining puretunes.com's actual DC customers because the defendant had erased relevant information on its servers. “Defendant's argument that it destroyed crucial evidence to prevent further transfer of music files is without doubt one of the most ludicrous arguments ever visited upon this Court,” the district judge wrote. The plaintiff's computer expert had nevertheless been able to recover a small amount of information from the servers. The court found the data sufficient to establish continuous and systematic contacts with the District of Columbia.

Finally, the defendant had failed to authorize its credit card service to give the plaintiffs information about puretunes.com customers. The court concluded: “As a sanction for defendant's failure to comply with this Court's order compelling discovery, the Court infers that the [credit card service] records include transactions with District of Columbia residents that are sufficient to support a finding of continuous and systematic contacts with the District of Columbia.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that a company based in Madrid, Spain, was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia by maintaining a Web site that enabled DC residents to download unlicensed sound recordings. Arista Records Inc. v. Sakfield Holding Co. S.L., 03-1474. The ruling provides a liberal view for finding both specific and general jurisdiction over Internet defendants.

In this suit for copyright infringement, among other things, the court first found that the affidavit of one DC resident who had used the defendant's puretunes.com was sufficient to establish that the defendant was subject to specific jurisdiction by “transacting any business” in the district. On the issue of general jurisdiction, the court noted that it wasn't necessary for DC residents to have subscribed to puretunes.com. Rather, the Web site's offer of an initial 25 free tunes to users amounted to “active solicitation.” “Whether or not defendant's advertising plan was targeted at District of Columbia residents specifically, by signing up District residents to this free trial period defendant entered a business relationship with District residents,” the district court emphasized. “The 24 hour availability of downloadable files and transfer of files to those customers in the District is exactly the sort of purposeful, active, systematic, and continuous activity in the District of Columbia that constitutes 'doing business.' ”

But the court was hindered in determining puretunes.com's actual DC customers because the defendant had erased relevant information on its servers. “Defendant's argument that it destroyed crucial evidence to prevent further transfer of music files is without doubt one of the most ludicrous arguments ever visited upon this Court,” the district judge wrote. The plaintiff's computer expert had nevertheless been able to recover a small amount of information from the servers. The court found the data sufficient to establish continuous and systematic contacts with the District of Columbia.

Finally, the defendant had failed to authorize its credit card service to give the plaintiffs information about puretunes.com customers. The court concluded: “As a sanction for defendant's failure to comply with this Court's order compelling discovery, the Court infers that the [credit card service] records include transactions with District of Columbia residents that are sufficient to support a finding of continuous and systematic contacts with the District of Columbia.”