Wednesday, May 23, 2007

RIAA Tries to Make New Submission in opposition to UMG v. Lindor In Limine Motion

In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has attempted to make a new submission in opposition to the defendant's in limine motion:

May 18, 2007, Letter of Richard Gabriel*
May 18, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman*

* 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

8 comments:

AMD FanBoi said...

Let's walk through this:

1) A case is shown where an attorney was sanctioned for filing a frivolous motion with the court.

2) The RIAA has just filed a frivolous, sharp practice, completely irrelevant, motion with this court.

3) Pull out gun, aim at foot.

Alter_Fritz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Art said...

It's baffling how the RIAA would consider this in any way to be related to the in limine motion!

But I am curious about the order by the Texas judge. If I understand Grokster, the defendants were actively encouraging and profiting over infringement and so were held liable for that reason. There's no evidence that Heslep actively encouraged nor profited, and the judge admits there's only evidence of secondary infringement at the specific time mentioned by the RIAA complaint. Grokster says secondary infringement is a common-law offense, and not covered by copyright law. OK, so someone please explain to me why this isn't a common-law matter to be heard in small claims court (actual damages ~$0.70/song) or at most in a state court?

Ray Beckerman said...

I rejected a comment because it had a profanity in it. Sorry.

There's something fishy about the Heslep case. I never heard anything about the case until the RIAA trotted out this decision.

Ray Beckerman said...

Yes, amd.... the RIAA has done a lot of frivolous things. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with them.

Alter_Fritz said...

no need to publish this post!


have you seen this?

http://www.studentlegalrights.org/attorneys.shtml
"RIAA Files Lawsuit in Columbus Federal Court Against Unknown Individuals Using Ohio University's Server

The RIAA has filed a lawsuit againt the following 10 IP addresses that are affiliated with Ohio University:

132.235.106.36 2007-02-07 15:14:48 EST

132.235.151.68 2007-01-18 10:14:03 EST

64.247.104.212 2007-01-16 02:14:14 EST

64.247.106.158 2007-01-17 00:00:44 EST

64.247.107.48 2007-02-07 06:35:07 EST

64.247.107.88 2007-01-21 06:13:00 EST

64.247.120.44 2007-01-31 23:20:16 EST

64.247.70.176 2007-01-19 04:53:37 EST

64.247.76.60 2007-02-02 22:36:54 EST

64.247.94.81 2007-01-19 04:07:41 EST


If you received a Pre-Litigation Settlement letter from the RIAA associated with one of these IP addresses, it is advisable to begin seeking legal representation. Please read the postings below with information about available attorneys. You can also find a list of attorneys nationwide at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

Click here to see the complaint filed in court and the exhibit list containing the IP addresses. The files are in PDF format. "

Ray Beckerman said...

That's not news, Alter_Fritz. They bring those John Doe cases every day.

The news is that Joe Hazelbaker is challenging them.

Alter_Fritz said...

thats why i started it with " no need to publish this post!"
I thought of it more as a tip for your "Commentary & discussion:" link section above.

Never mind ;-)