In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has filed papers opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among RIAA members to jointly prosecute and settle cases, relating to her affirmative defense of "copyright misuse":
June 29, 2007, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel, Opposing Defendant's Request for Discovery into Agreements among RIAA members*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
Slashdot
Heise Online (German)
Slyck
Digital Copyright Canada
p2pnet
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
2 comments:
So the RIAA opposes discovery into its own workings in this case. The same RIAA that demanded to depose a non-resident, non-party, member of another case, including examining his computer with law records on it, and all his MP3 playback devices -- most of which would likely be destroyed, or warranties voided, by any such examination. The same RIAA who pretexted in an attempt to make improper contact with a 10-year-old child in another case in the hopes that said child would say something incriminating while under duress since they had NO evidence otherwise. Yes, that RIAA.
It should be well established that the first judge to hear a novel issue in a very similar case is not necessarily the most correct judge in his ruling on it. It's nice when a judge says that another judge of essentially equal rank isn't binding on every case that follows. Of course, the RIAA wants it exactly the other way, at least as long as they're getting what they want.
I would think that when you're on the wrong end of a counterclaim, you have to cough up as much discovery as you intended to extract from the original Defendants. Original Defendants are allowed to make their case as well, and the only reasonable reason that the RIAA can be claiming that they'll win on summary (they ALWAYS claim that they're winning, so what's new here) because there is no evidence, is because they're doing all they can to HIDE such evidence!
Funny how the RIAA is now quoting the SCOTUS in stating that pleadings require "more than labels (media distribution system) and conclusions (on information and belief), and the formulaic recitation of the elements (used, and continues to use) of a cause of action will not do." Well if that won't do, how is the RIAA able to keep ANY of these cases in court for even another hour?
I think the RIAA has something to hide by making motions like this. I think that they are afraid to expose the true nature of their litigation methods because they are afraid that defendants could actually WIN!
Post a Comment