In Elektra v. Schwartz, a Brooklyn case against Queens resident Rae J Schwartz, who has Multiple Sclerosis, the RIAA has opposed the motion Ms. Schwartz made based on the Michigan case Priority v. Chan II, for appointment of a guardian ad litem whose fees would be funded by the plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion for Guardian Ad Litem*
* 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
4 comments:
Hmm. given that letter from RIAA, I thing the american public can draw some more lines when the big 4 record companies thinks that you are one of the 60 million americans that is worth to be singled out as a "targeted user" (their words!)
[x] Have public records that show you have a 10 year old Nissan.
(to be continued)
__
Seriously (but rethoricly asked i would say!)
Ray, why are they using exact the same stupid argument like in the Chan case?
Haven't they read what the judge in the chan case wrote as a reaction to their now in wide parts recycled argument? That it is just allledged by the plaintiffs that they lost anything and that they can not claim they will be "victimized" just because they pay the GAL in advanced now?
Me wonders after reading the RIAA lawyers explaination when the appointment of a GAL is propper ("[...]a litigant is so unfocussed that [she ...] cannot distinguish real from imagined events") why has no one appointed a GAL for the RIAA already.
I guess most people would say the corporations that form the RIAA have exactly that handicap.
Must correct myself: they aren't targeted users of p2p networks as I wrote, but only "target[ed] subscribers of ISPs according to Steve Marks (some RIAA-guy)
let me quote from the others judges decision where he rejected the plaintiffs arguments and where he quoted the plainfiffs arguments:
In its response, Plaintiffs respectfully declined the Court’s suggestion to have Plaintiffs pay
into escrow Defendant’s guardian ad litem fees and asked the Court to look to the Defendant and
her parents for payment first. In support of that argument, Plaintiffs argue:
(1) Plaintiffs have already been damaged as a result of Defendant’s conduct (the Court
notes, however, that such conduct is alleged and not proven);
(2) Plaintiffs would be victimized a second time if they had to pay her fees now because
if they did so, it might be tantamount to having them pay her fees at the end of the
matter;
(3) Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits and thus not legally responsible for the
costs of the guardian ad litem;
(4) There is no reason at this point to believe that Defendant could not pay the fees
herself, as neither Defendant nor her parents have indicated that she lacks the
resources to pay for the guardian ad litem;
[...]
Oh, just one thing i did forgot yesterday because i thought it is oviously;
Any family member beside the "10 year old nissan owner" that is sued here can of course not function as a GAL. The reason for that is ovious: possible conflict of interest.
The RIAA has a pattern of suing other people/amend the complained to include members of the family beside the ISP account holder. It is therefor not unlikely that they might not only sue the daughter what the RIAA already more or less announced in their letter here, but also that they might accuse the Husband -or what ever "financialy capable of paying for a GAL"-familymember the RIAA suggests now- for being a "direct infringer".
Thanks to the RIAA behaviour in other cases this issue here clearly shouts "conflict of interest", If anyone associated with a current or possibly later party in this action acts as a GAL.
Post a Comment