In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA is attempting to avoid disclosing information from which its expenses per download can be determined, which are needed for Ms. Lindor's unconstitutionality defense in order to determine the plaintiffs' lost profits. In response to Ms. Lindor's July 11, 2007, interrogatory, plaintiffs served only an objection, and gave Ms. Lindor's attorney no information.
In subsequent communications the RIAA's attorney refused to provide any information or any stipulation, and insisted instead that defendant rely on the revenues as though they were the profits.
Today Ms. Lindor made a motion to compel a response to her July 11th interrogatory, noting that it had taken her six (6) months to get the needed stipulation relating to the plaintiffs' revenues-per-download, and that she had now been waiting an additional three (3) months to get the expense-per-download figure.
October 6, 2007, Letter Motion of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Robert M. Levy for order compelling response to Interrogatory dated July 11, 2007 (Re Expenses Per Download)*
* 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
The donation button below links to a PayPal account established by Marie Lindor's family for people who may wish to make financial contributions to Ms. Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. Lindor. Contributions are not tax deductible.