Saturday, September 09, 2006

UMG, Interscope, & Motown Refuse to Testify About Their Employees' Use of FileSharing with Radio Stations, in UMG v. Lindor

The RIAA has refused to testify on yet another subject in UMG v. Lindor, its radio promotion employees' use of peer to peer file sharing to send song files to radio stations, this despite the Magistrate Judge's having ordered them to provide such testimony at a July 25, 2006, discovery conference:

September 8, 2006, Letter to Magistrate*
Document Request Number 4*
Response to Document Request Number 4*
Interrogatory Number 5*
Response to Interrogatory Number 5*

The RIAA plaintiffs have taken the position that they only need to testify about whether the companies used p2p file sharing, arguing that the Magistrate limited Ms. Lindor's interrogatories by removing the term "employees".

Commentary and discussion:
TechDirt
Ars Technica
p2pnet.net

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Table of Cases

Digg!

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

4 comments:

pepper said...

Well well well, apparently the riaa "dudes" know more than the Judge knows. I think this Judge should hold them in contempt of court!

Alter_Fritz said...

Hm, in the questions they were supposed to answer, the term "any ONLINE MEDIA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM" is used.
(the same term the RIAA uses in their own boilerplate charges!)

Not only do they twist the judges words like they see fit regarding the questions, but also do they narrow their answer to "file-sharing programs such as Kazaa".
That wasn't the question if they used something such as Kazza!
(We already have seen from courtdocuments from last year that the RIAA and their "investigators" don't know the differences and simple incompatibilities between the different ONLINE MEDIA DISTRUBUTION-systems!)
Of course they could have used such a system and maybe they could claim later with respect to their reworded answers and questions that they did not lied in the depositions?

If I would be the judge I would be really pissed off if such high profile plaintiffs would play their "game" also with me and my orders!

(Maybe someone should tell the jugde in this case (as a judicial notice) that the RIAA is known for that they did not comply with the orders of the judge if these orders are not in favour of them! [the guardian thingy with this infamous Mr. Krichbaum for example!])

Ray Beckerman said...

alter_fritz said....

....

If I would be the judge I would be really pissed off if such high profile plaintiffs would play their "game" also with me and my orders!


Me too.

Ray Beckerman said...



pepper said...

Well well well, apparently the riaa "dudes" know more than the Judge knows. I think this Judge should hold them in contempt of court!


Agreed.