Thursday, February 07, 2008

Judge grants EFF motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief in Arista v. Does 1-21

Judge Gertner has granted the Electronic Frontier Foundation's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Arista v. Does 1-21 involving Boston University students, overruling the RIAA's objections, on the ground that the cases present "questions of copyright law and computer technology" and that "amici participation" may "shed light on the issues before [the Court]".

Order granting leave to file amicus curiae brief*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net
Slashdot
Electronic Frontier Foundation






Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property






10 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray if she accepted this by just putting some handwritten stuff on a fax where the handwriting can bearly be read like from judge Castel...

...then its not so important that you fix your link above ;-)

Otherwise I would like to ask you to do that and please tell me what judge Castel wrote on that piece of paper other then IT IS SO ORDERED and what does this actually mean for that case in plain german ehm english I mean :-)

Ray Beckerman said...

Thanks, Alter.......

I've fixed the link.

Ray Beckerman said...

Judge Castel was saying 'no need for a conference.... go ahead and make your motion.... but make the exclusion motion along with your summary judgment motion, or, if you're not making a summary judgment motion, make the exclusion motion closer to the trial date'.

Alter_Fritz said...

k, thanks!

Jadeic said...

Having, so to speak, thrown all their eggs in to one basket in an attempt to block this amicus curiae brief it is difficult to see what else the RIAA can come up with by way of objections - but I am sure we can rely on them to submit another 20-odd pages of waffle.

Russell said...

I don't know how she will rule but at least she is going to think about the issues rather than try to clear her docket. I am sure she could have ruled on a narrow issue instead of examining the underlying issues.

Anonymous said...

Why is the case name London-Sire Records Inc. et al v. Does 1-4? Although the case number matches the consolidated case number in the other documents, there are more than 4 does, and London-Sire isn't listed as a co-plaintiff in the other documents (for example, in the RIAA opposition of amicus).

Q

Cranky Guy in Ojai said...

Regarding the pdf in the posted link, the document appears to have the correct case number but has the Case Name as "London-Sire Records Inc. et al v. Does 1-4", not "Arista v. Does 1-21".

Is this an error or am I missing something?

Anonymous said...

Just curious... RIAA objected and the Does choose not to consent -- any particular reason they might have for that? Is the brief not beneficial to their case?

Albert said...

In answer to why the Does have "chosen" not to consent:

The DOES have not been served with this lawsuit. It is highly likely that most of the does do not even know of this action, let alone made ANY choice as to the filing of this brief.

Albert