Thursday, February 15, 2007

RIAA Files Reply Brief Attacking LimeWire's Antitrust Counterclaims

In the RIAA case against LimeWire, Arista v. LimeWire, the RIAA has filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss LimeWire's antitrust counterclaims:

February 15, 2007, Reply Memorandum of Law*

* 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

7 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray, I don't understand?
Had the judge not ruled a week ago that the "show must go on"?

Judge Gerald E. Lynch rejected their argument, and ordered discovery to proceed on the antitrust issues

Ray Beckerman said...

Very often in antitrust cases, when a dismissal motion is made, the Court prunes and reshapes the pleading -- i.e. it snips a bit here and there, says 'this theory sounds good', 'this theory sounds bad', 'this theory is bad but would be okay if it also included X,Y,and Z which are lacking'... and then the Court gives them an opportunity to put in an amended pleading.

I.e., in antitrust cases, a dismissal motion is usually not dispositive of the entire antitrust claim, but often results in the claim being re-worded or redesigned.

Ray Beckerman said...

1. The RIAA made a motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims.

2. That motion hasn't been fully briefed yet; this reply memorandum is the last brief.

3. A few days ago the RIAA tried to get the judge to put pretrial discovery on the antitrust issues on hold while the dismissal motion was going on.

4. The judge said "no", no stay, you must go forward with pretrial discovery on the antitrust issues.

5. When he did that, he wasn't deciding what he was going to do about the dismissal motion.

6. He was just saying he wants the parties to go forward with the antitrust discovery.

Alter_Fritz said...

ok, thanks for the explaination.

Anonymous said...

Ray,
In reading some of the papers in this case, it appears LW is making the claim that Sharman is a RIAA "friendly" entity. Is this since the settlement or was it true prior to the settlement. Surprised me.

Also, for all of us fighting this thing, thanks for serving as a resource.

Arista vs. Greubel

Ray Beckerman said...

I was not aware of anyone thinking Kazaa and the RIAA were friendly prior to the settlement, but what do I know?

Anonymous said...

Ray,
In the document,DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER ANDLIME WIRE’S FIRST AMENDED
COUNTERCLAIMS, the following

"Upon information and belief, Altnet and its related entity Sharman Networks have conspired with the Major Labels to “force” Lime Wire and otherP2P companies to enter into a license with Altnet in order to obtain these necessary hashes."

Just struck me as very strang bedfellows.