Wednesday, August 22, 2007

RIAA Requests Permission to File "Sur-Reply" Brief in Warner v. Cassin; Files it Anyway

In Warner v. Cassin, the RIAA has taken the unusual step of making a motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief, and the even more unusual step of filing a sur-reply brief without the Court's permission having been granted.

The proposed brief would be in response to the reply memorandum served by Ms. Cassin in response to the RIAA's papers in opposition to Ms. Cassin's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ms. Cassin opposed the "motion".

Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply Brief*
Proposed Surreply Brief*
August 22, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman opposing Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply Brief*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs




10 comments:

AMD FanBoi said...

It's clear that the RIAA doesn't believe in following any rules except their own, and attempt to rewrite laws to fit their vision of how laws should be written. As such, they seek to usurp two of the three branches of the federal government (legislative and judiciary), although they were never elected or appointed to do so by the American people.

Alter_Fritz said...

if it wouldn't be so sad, it actually would be funny.

Plaintiffs complain about cherry picking from a transcript in a case they claim is unrelated.

First it isn't cherry picking when counsel does exactly what the individual motion practices of a Judge suggests, namely only citing the relevant parts of transcripts.
Second, how they can argue that Elektra vs Barker is an "unrelated case" must be for everyone that is following those RIAAvsPeople cases beyond believe.
It's those Plaintiffs that had argued time and time again that because some totally strangers to each other are very well related cases jsut because it is the alleged same misconduct (copyrightinfringement) via the same Medium (Internet) alegedly damaging a same set of plaintiffs.
Thy even argued that because of this those cases are so strongly releated that they even file one mass lumping together unrelated Doe's suit which Judges has ordered to be against the law.
Make up your Mind plaintiffs what your lawyers should argument. With sane jduges you can't have it both ways!

What I would call cherry picking (or is it nit picking?) is Mr. Moron's smart ass argument that it was childpornography and not drugs in this criminal case they cited.
All those different counsels for the Plaintiffs brought up so many ludicrous analogies like file trafficking instead of -sharing for example, that a simple misspeaking on defendants side does not warrant what Plaintiffs had done here with this sur-reply.

Even more since plaintiffs did not deny that their case citation was not about "distribution" in the context of an infringement of copyrightlaw which is what matters here and not their so called "common sense approach" in a criminal case. How can Mr. Moron and Mr. Guida cite common sense when they and their organised music Clients clearly lacks exactly that?

Ray Beckerman said...

mhoyes62, I'm sorry but I had to reject your comment because the first half of it implied that US v. Shaffer had something to do with ocpyright cases, which it does not.

arteekay said...

"As such, they seek to usurp two of the three branches of the federal government (legislative and judiciary), although they were never elected or appointed to do so by the American people."

@amd fanboi

Maybe the RIAA thinks thinks they are Cheney. Let's just hope they don't shoot anybody in the face.

Macros said...

I'd almost place money on the RIAA saying "oops, we didn't meant to file the sur-reply, please ignore it" or something equally similar.

Michael Hoffman said...

It's Lexis, not Lexus. Please feel free to delete this comment after reading.

Russell said...

amd fanboi: As such, they seek to usurp two of the three branches of the federal government (legislative and judiciary), although they were never elected or appointed to do so by the American people.

With their influence at the copyright board (web broadcasts) I would say they have the executive branch covered too

Anonymous said...

Professor Nesson has started a facebook group in support of Joel Tenenbaum's case against RIAA.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=37707326867

Anonymous said...

Sorry, the group is:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=37707326867

Anonymous said...

well, i dont know why the full group number is not showing up.
Search for the group "joel fights back against RIAA"