Monday, March 31, 2008

Ars Technica reports that RIAA has complained about amended complaint in Andersen v. Atlantic & judge ordered plaintiff to file 3rd complaint

According to a report in Ars Technica, the RIAA has complained about the amended complaint which plaintiff filed in Andersen v. Atlantic, and the judge has ordered plaintiff to file yet another amended complaint.

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


Alter_Fritz said...

As much as I dislike to do it, but this time I must agree with defendant here. :-(
(Actually I had the feeling that the 108 pages are very repetitive and short on clear facts directly after I was thru them but did not want to say anything about the missing specifics. It reminded me of those unspecific allegations the defendants here normaly use when they are the plaintiffs witt those "on information and believe" statemetns that they use to fish afterwards on the harddrives of the peoples)

This time counsel for the labels did a well done job in showing what the judge asked Mr. Lybeck and that those clear answers are -in my humble opinion too- are missing inthe 108 pages.

Lets hope Lory does not "blew" the 3rd chance too. For that the issues with all the wrongdoings on the RIAA part are just to important!!
Maybe he could have a word with Mr Altman?
What I have read from him or "heard" via court transcripts ;-) he is good in bringing issues on the point.

But at least there is one paragraph in their filing that might be helpful when it's them against the people:

For their part, Defendants believe that the discovery that Plaintiff envisions is not proper, given that discovery here should be limited to this case alone [...] and to claims that are sufficiently pled and properly before the Court in the first instance. See DM Research Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 55 (1st Cir. 1999) (“[T]he price of entry, even to discovery, is for plaintiff to allege a factual predicate concrete enough to warrant further proceedings, which may be costly and burdensome. Conclusory allegations in a complaint, if they stand alone, are a danger sign that the plaintiff is engaged in a fishing expedition.”); Grosz v. Lassen Community College District, No. 2:07-cv-0697-FCD/CMK, 2007 WL 4356624, at * 2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2007)"

(to supoena relatives in other states that have nothign to do with defendant come to my mind when thinking about unwarranted further proceedings)

Oh, btw the RIAA answer I refer here was made available by here:

StephenH said...

Just the RIAA using every technicality and trick they know to prevent this from going forward, hoping that Tanya will give up. I hope that this case goes forward. This case has the potential to curtail, change, or even end RIAA's campaign for good.

Anonymous said...

In the RIAA's latest complaint, they seem to be grasping at straws. Also, it seems the true thrust of their complaint is to severely limit discovery. It's mentioned more than once. Hmmm, I wonder why they're so afraid of discovery?

TwoCents (or maybe just one)

Anonymous said...

Apparently, if you can't attack the substance of the complaint, try attacking its style first.

Interesting that the RIAA says there really is no substance to the complaint itself, yet they whine about needing extra time to effectively reply to this nothing.

As such the admit to the contradictions and self-inconsistencies in their own position.

Of course the RIAA, who believes they're entitled to perform an anal examination of your own personal hard drive, along with the rest of your life, and that of anyone else who is either related, or ever knew you, now claims that no discovery is necessary against them.


Anonymous said...

Seems to me that the RIAA lawyers are complaining about the same technique they use in other cases. On the whole, I'd much rather see a huge document that is basic and redundant than a huge document with circular (and flawed) reasoning.