An Ohio University student accused of sharing copyrighted music could have to pay more than $7,000 because he did not respond to a lawsuit filed by six record companies.

Another student accused of file-sharing lost a seven-month legal battle to keep five record companies from discovering his or her identity Monday.

Both lawsuits are a result of the Recording Industry Association of America’s crackdown on music sharers that began in February.

Brandon Martin, one of five OU students facing music-sharing lawsuits, was notified of the lawsuit against him on Sept. 14, according to court records. When he did not respond to the lawsuit after 20 days, lawyers for the record companies filed a motion for default judgment on Oct 23.

A default judgment by the court would rule in favor of the record companies by default because Martin did not respond to the lawsuit against him.

That motion asks for $6,750 in damages, $445 in legal fees and an injunction preventing Martin from further distributing the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Because the record companies are seeking the minimum damages under copyright law — $750 per song for nine songs — the motion states no evidentiary hearing is necessary.

Martin did not respond to several phone calls and e-mails requesting comment.

Brian J. O’Connell, one of the lawyers representing record companies against Martin, said in his experience about half of such cases end in default judgments.

O’Connell’s firm, Dinsmore and Shohl, represents the recording industry as local counsel in Kentucky, West Virginia and the southern district of Ohio, O’Connell said, adding that he’s worked on more than 100 similar cases in the last two or three years.

No documents have been filed in any of the four other OU related file-sharing lawsuits announced by the recording industry in September, but another OU network user who fought since May to keep his or her identity secret from the recording industry suffered a major setback Monday.

A Columbus judge denied a motion by John Doe 13, represented by Christopher Minnillo, that would have stopped the subpoena. The case, Arista et al. v. Does 1 – 15, involved 15 OU network users.

Minnillio argued in his motion that storing copyrighted files on a computer accessible by others did not constitute distribution and that the complaint’s evidence was not strong enough to overrule Doe 13’s right to privacy.

The judge disagreed.

“Doe #13’s arguments are misplaced and insufficient to overcome the findings of good cause in this case,” wrote Judge Michael Watson.

A New York lawyer who has represented clients against record companies and tracks cases across the country on his blog said that he thinks Minnillio’s motion missed several key points.

The motion didn’t argue that the cases of the Does involved in the lawsuit were improperly combined into one complaint or against problems with the technical evidence, Ray Beckerman said. Both have been successful arguments in other courts.

“I think it’s a shame Ohio University didn’t help out with this,” Beckerman said, referring to the university’s decision not to provide legal defense to those facing recording industry lawsuits. “It’s a disgrace.”

At the time, university officials said the decision to forward letters from the RIAA — made with student input — would allow students to choose whether or not to settle.

Beckerman was also critical of the judge’s decision to allow accelerated discovery, which was granted after record company lawyers argued that network logs critical to the case might destroyed by OU.