Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Reply Papers Served by Defendant in Interscope v. Kimmel, in further support of defendant's dismissal motion

In Interscope v. Kimmel, in Binghamton, New York, the defendant has filed reply papers in further support of his motion to dismiss, responding to the RIAA's opposition papers.

Reply Declaration*
Reply Memorandum*

* 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






7 comments:

Mike said...

Wow... Richard Altman certainly has a way with words. I especially like his explanation of how the John Doe suit counts.

Based on what I saw there, I get the feeling that may become a standard response in any post-Doe litigation from now on.

This is one of the things I love about your blog, Ray. The sharing of information and ideas to help all parties (yes, plaintiffs included if they'd open their eyes) that these lawsuits are the wrong way to proceed. I've read many an article over at TechDirt that points out the basic facts that the RIAA seems to forget: people will pay for convenience and avoid paying for inconvenience. If they REALLY want to survive in the digital age, they're going to have to adapt. If they don't, maybe we can get them to say "Hi!" to the dinosaurs for us... :-)

Ray Beckerman said...

I agree with you about Richard Altman. He is a superb lawyer... in the grand tradition!

Anonymous said...

Time for the Defendant to Subpoena the process server. If in fact the server failed to serve the father, their statement they were truely suing the father would fall flat.

Also, the part about "including the same claim" seems to mess up their plan to add more plaintiffs to prop up their case....

Albert

Alter_Fritz said...

"Plaintiffs have forfeited their day in court by their own inaction. If these plaintiffs, with their vastly superior resources, are unable to litigate their claim properly, this Court should not assist them by letting them continue until they get it right.

Plaintiffs’ game-playing with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has gone far enough.
"

So, so true.
Now only more judges needs to see That fact too!

Anonymous said...

Is it just my Acrobat Reader, or is the Reply scanned upside down?

Nohwhere Man said...

It's upside down.

Ray Beckerman said...

So would someone want to send me a proper one to post?