Friday, May 11, 2007

Exchange of Letters in Maverick v. Chowdhury as Chowdhury Responds to RIAA "request for proof of innocence"

An exchange of letters took place today in Maverick v. Chowdhury, pending in federal court in Brooklyn:

May 10, 2007, Letter of Brian E. Moran to Ray Beckerman, Requesting Information "supporting defendant's claim of innocence"*
May 11, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Brian E. Moran, Rejecting Requesting Information "supporting defendant's claim of innocence" and Demanding Withdrawal of Frivolous Case*

* 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:

Megan said...

Go, Ray!

At times, I wonder if the RIAA attorneys got their degrees in a box of Cracker Jack... I have no legal training whatsoever, but I'm still aware that the accuser has the burden of proof here.

Alter_Fritz said...

Apparently Igor was right in his interpretation here about the state of mind this RIAA-law office Robinson & Cole LLP is behaving in those cases where they sue people without knowing that they did anything unlawfull.

guilty (responsible) because they say so without having any serious evidence to claim that until the accused proof otherwise.

What a perverted view of principles of justice.

These Robinson & Cole LLP lawyers are disgusting in my opinion!

AMD FanBoi said...

RIAA: Your client is guilty, until you prove to our satisfaction his/her innocence by making our case for us against the actual infringer, whom we don't even know exists at all, but your client must. They absolutely must. Oh, and by the way, we'll then – eventually -- dismiss without prejudice, so do plan on getting your payments directly from your now innocent client. And do keep them around to testify for us in our eventual case against the person they identify.

Ray: You've got to be kidding!

RIAA to the Court: See, your Honor, we attempted to resolve this issue in good faith. All we ever wanted was to pressure someone into throwing the "direct infringer" under the bus for us.

The Court: ???

Interested Observer said...

Since the answers and counterclaims have been filed doesn't a request to dismiss without prejudice have to be consented to by the defendant? Why would a defendant consent at this point when getting it dismissed with prejudice means a shot at getting their legal fees paid?

jellie said...

Sheesh, Mr. Moran's letter seems like extortion: "We know you're guilty, so admit it or else blame someone else."

Reminds me of McCarthyism and China's Cultural Revolution.

Can you point to the children of Mr. Bronfman (the CEO of Warner)? Then ask them to provide evidence that they aren't the ones who committed the violations (instead of Chowdhury). It probably wouldn't work, but it's worth a try.

Markbnj said...

Ray , thanks AGAIN for giving us this site, and the RSS feed to provide what some of us actually view as the sport of "tickling the dragon, to see how far the chain will drag..."

It's like watching a moth (RIAA) be drawn into a flame, and consumed.
But the funny thing is they dont appear to notice..
markb