Wednesday, August 22, 2007

RIAA Tries to Push Case Against MS Victim in Elektra v. Schwartz

Despite a schedule agreed upon by the parties and fixed by the Magistrate Judge, the RIAA has written a letter demanding that the case proceed against the defendant, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, in Elektra v. Schwartz

August 22, 2007, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

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

1 comment:

AMD FanBoi said...

Nice to see how a denial of guilt and a refusal to speak for other non-party persons is twisted by the RIAA into an admission of involvement. A denial to implicate anyone else suggests NOTHING!

And how the RIAA is willing to dismiss without prejudice so that they don't have to pay lawyer fees (and continue to be saddled with the horrible press of suing an MS victim), just so that they can re-file against other people WITH EVEN LESS PROOF OF INVOLVEMENT THAN THEY HAVE AGAINST THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT and continue to run up the legal bills, and harass and intrude into other lives in the apparent goal go punish EVERYONE who has even ever heard about filesharing, computers, or music!

I find it fascinating that they think they have the right depose non-party persons , i.e. the husband and daughter when there's NO EVIDENCE that either ever participated in, or witnessed any illegal activity. Or to threaten to file suit against them with this LACK of evidence.

Who do they want to dispose next? Neighbors? Everyone else sharing the same cable loop? Anyone who visited the house in the last three years? They take the unproven assumption that the infringing activity their investigators allegedly discovered and make the leap that it had to happen in this house, and therefore by somebody in this house. How much more flimsy of a justification can possibly exist? And what if the husband and daughter deny, as has the current Defendant, what next? Truth serum?