The RIAA has refused to supply defendant's lawyer with a timetable for its production of "all relevant documents" concerning its wholesale prices for downloads in UMG v. Lindor, so after a month of trying to get them to agree to a schedule, Ms. Lindor's attorneys have asked the Magistrate to fix a date. The RIAA responded, but its response does not even suggest to the Magistrate a date on which it would be willing to comply:
December 13, 2006, Letter of Ray Beckerman (Timetable for Production of Wholesale Download Pricing Documents*
December 14, 2006, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel (Timetable for Production of Wholesale Download Pricing Documents*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
p2pnet.net
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
14 comments:
They're just stonewalling.
As usual.
dave, there is no "real" competition among the plaintiffs.
And RIAA-Richard1's claim that plaintiffs do not share wholesale pricing information with each other is just bunk.
You might want to ask New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer what he thought about that. :-)
those plaintiffs sue you collectively, iTunes charges you collectively 99ct no matter who of those "competitors" is the rightsholder, they are just stonewalling again!
"Also on November 9th I requested the documents. My adversary indicated he would comply."
Why does he claim in his answer now that you did not requested them?
30 = 28th of august I guess was what you refered to, wasn't it?
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=umg_lindor_060828OrderRML
I think they are afraid of any consumer win presedent which is why they want to stonewall. I think they are afraid if enough discovery happens, there is something that the defendants will uncover that will hold up proving the person was "not guilty".
Alter_Fritz said... "Also on November 9th I requested the documents. My adversary indicated he would comply." Why does he claim in his answer now that you did not requested them?
He's saying there wasn't a formal request.
I told him I don't need a formal request, I have a court order.
In any event he specifically said to me 'even though you didn't serve a formal request we will comply'.
So his bringing it up now is not cricket.
If he had said to me a month ago 'we will not comply unless you serve a formal request' I would have taken the 10 minutes it would have taken to send him one.
"If he had said to me a month ago 'we will not comply unless you serve a formal request' I would have taken the 10 minutes it would have taken to send him one."
Ray, ironicly it was you that told me a few comments ago (not with this words here of course), more or less something was wrong with me because I expressed something with regards to his trustworthyness.
Now YOU see how trustworthy RIAA-Richard is!
Do not believe what such a guy tells you. For the next steps in dealing with the evil RIAA better take for what ever tiny formality it is the 10 minutes. And tell Judge Levy why you are doing it; "because the officers of the court that represent RIAA-member plaintiffs do not act civilised like reasonable human beings"
Ray, you are stressing my vocabulary capabilities ;-)
The internet to the rescue!
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/not+cricket.html
alter_fritz said..."
Ray, ironicly it was you that told me a few comments ago (not with this words here of course), more or less something was wrong with me because I expressed something with regards to his trustworthyness.
Now YOU see how trustworthy RIAA-Richard is! "
You're dreaming, alter_fritz.
I have never at any time suggested that Richard L. Gabriel is trustworthy.
I see you haven't understand what I wantet to express;
of course you have never said that you think he is trustworthy.
(you commented that you was more or less wondering why I [the guy who coined the term "Riaa-Richard" as you said] said that I tend to believed him in the "calling affair".)
So I was aware that you don't thought he is trustworhty, when i wrote above comment. Thats why I commented here that it is ironic.
The irony I meant is that you were oviously already back then aware what *beep* he is, and still you seemed to believe him that he would play fair and would provide you with things without having a judge ordering him to the minute what to do!
(in other words you already knew what kind of guy he is, yet you "complain" that he does not play cricket. It's like complaining that the ratpoison killed the rat. RIAA-Richard works for the RIAAdevils, so he behaves accordingly)
alter_fritz wrote: "The irony I meant is that you were oviously already back then aware what *beep* he is, and still you seemed to believe him that he would play fair and would provide you with things without having a judge ordering him to the minute what to do!
I wouldn't have lasted 28 years as a litigation attorney if it was my practice to "trust" those of my adversaries who have proven themselves time and again to have no honor.
I did not "trust" him to do anything.
I knew already that he could not be trusted.
All I knew is that I had it in writing that he had made the representation that I did not need to serve a formal document request.
In most courts, when an attorney attempts to weasel out of a commitment he has made, he causes grave harm to himself and his client.
This court, admittedly, has in the past been much more forgiving of Mr. Gabriel's dishonorable and obstructive conduct than I would have anticipated.
I can only hope that the cumulative effect of his behavior will give the judges a clearer picture of who they are dealing with.
Bear in mind that he was already under a court order to turn over the documents. Most judges would hit the ceiling upon learning that someone had taken the position, as Mr. Gabriel has now done, that the order was not enforceable, and that the other party had to serve a formal request for compliance with a judge's order.
Have a look at the judicial practice in SCO vs. IBM. We all know what a crock SCO's case is. At times it has looked like the court was buying SCO's line hook line and sinker, but as PJ explained, Judges do not like to be overturned on appeal, so they go out of their way to make sure no one has cause for one.
The problem here is that none of these judges ever get as far as the ones in SCO vs IBM because the RIAA drops those cases.
Now, as for the "wholesale" price of a recording; I would presume this (because i've worked in this industry at the reatail level) there isn't a whole sale price for a recording. They've never costed what it costs to make any recording. They cannot do the accounting in such detail because the who process is obfuscated in a web of deception meant to deceive both the general public and law makers alike.
They cannot admit that, so they must muddy the waters and throw all this back in the dependents face.
What it actually costs to make a recording for either you or I is easily calculated. What it cost them to make one, after all the promotional items and other "favours" they do, you cannot actually tally that up.
davidf
Lindor does not want to know what it cost to make a recording of an artistic performance.
Lindor claims with afidavits that Organised Music charges a retailer like apple about 70ct per record while they want to "charge" a defendant via a judgement over 1000 times that price per record.
Lindor (and others) argue that this is unconstitutional.
I think a judge that must decide about that question can take the values that Lindor brought to the table also at face value if the organised music continues to stonewall by not simply faxing the defendant 4 copies of the contract with apple where the price is visible.
Correct, alter_fritz:
1. It's the RIAA's selling price we want.
2. It would have been easy for them to give it to us. They're just stonewalling, as they have done on everything we have asked for.
Post a Comment