Thursday, February 15, 2007

New Contested Case in White Plains, Lava v. Amurao

A new contested case has been brought in White Plains, Lava Records v. Rolando Amurao. Here is a copy of the defendant's answer and counterclaims:

Answer and Counterclaims*

Mr. Amurao is represented by Richard A. Altman, of New York, New York.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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

6 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

25. Counterclaim plaintiff is further entitled to a judgment that counterclaim defendants have
forfeited the exclusive rights, if any, which they possess in and to the sound recordings listed on
Exhibits A and B to their complaint, whether or not he is alleged to have infringed the rights of
counterclaim defendants therein.


If this claim would be granted, that would be a desastrous ruling for the bad boys (the well-known and respected record companies I mean, in case of misssunderstanding).

Might be fun to see these (by RIAA letter already announced) future suits of them where exibit B is not 100s or 1000s of filenames long if the judge agrees with Counterclaim 25. ;-)

Alter_Fritz said...

P.S. of course it would be "more fun" if we must not see any more suits in the future at all, but I doubt that those greedy old man that suck from the creative artists and the Consumer are smart enough to transform their business modell into the 21st century digital age.
Maybe the boing boing comment is right after all:

At what point do we just abandon any pretense of making peace with these gangsters? When will it be time to declare war on them, to engage in file-sharing not because we love music, but because we hate the record companies?

Uplinktruck said...

That was really good. Alter_fritz stole my thunder in pointing that one out.

In a perfect world we would codify (right word?) the fair use portion of the copyright bargain. Enforcement would be easy. Any copyright holder that produces any copyrighted product that defeats the consumer's right to fair use would find his product in the public domain.

Ray Beckerman said...

Actually "fair use" is codified. It's found in Section 107 of the Copyright Act:
***************************

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Sanji Himura said...

Mr. Beckerman, I do have a question.

I'll state up front that I'm not a lawyer, but I've been reading through the Amurao answer and counter claims, and what does p. 16 in the first counterclaim mean in relation to p. 15(of the same counterclaim)?

You see, I have a saying that 'Ignorance can be fixed', and so I would like to be armed with the bane of the RIAA's mass lawsuits, knowledge.

Ray Beckerman said...

My interpretation:

since RIAA has pattern of withdrawing cases before trial, we are entitled to a declaratory judgment that we did not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights. RIAA should not be allowed to deprive us of our day in court and our right to be vindicatd in a court of law.