In both Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin, the two Southern District of New York cases in which motions to dismiss the complaint -- attacking the RIAA's "making available" theory and the lack of factual allegations of downloading and distributing-- are pending, the RIAA has sought to lift the stays of discovery which are now in effect, and has asked the judges to proceed with pretrial discovery, even though there has been no decision of either of the dismisal motions.
March 17, 2007, letter of Victor B. Kao to Hon. Kenneth M. Karas (Asking judge to lift stay of discovery in Elektra v. Barker)*
March 17, 2007, letter of Victor B. Kao to Hon. Stephen C. Robinson (Asking judge to lift stay of discovery in Warner v. Cassin)*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
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
8 comments:
Ah, yes. The RIAA wants to continue to harass the Defendant to the maximum amount possible, to fish for evidence because they have none yet, and to run up the Defendant's legal bills as much as they can possibly run them up since they have no intention of paying the Defendant a cent when the case does go away.
-DM
Hey why is this RIAA-Lawyer so concerned that evidence could get altered/overwritten with the passing of time?
They have already secured the evidence to prevail against the defendants at a trial!
So if they can not handle their own evidence properly that in my opinion should not be the burden of defendants!
Or could it be the RIAA has lied already at the very early beginning of all those whole processes when they claimed they have all the evidence they need to win?
Me wonders if it isn't sanctionable conduct to operate that way in american civil law procedings.
Is it really ok in your system that I can sue someone and get "evidence" for alleged wrongdoing only later from his own discovery obligations I impose upon him via my lawyer?
If that is the case maybe I should ask my bank for a credit (to get the fraud machine running first) then I sue for something I claim I have rights in and I can reasonably assume I will get some hits when I pick the defendants randomly from an american yellow pages book.
It does not matter that I have no actual evidence -that would pass any court test if the court knows what it must judge over- of actual wrongdoing by the defendants that I picked with a highly propritary method out of the yellow pages (The producer of the darts which I throw at the pages might demand their share if I would reveal that this is how I "catch/view/observe" the infringements of my rights)!
If they will not pay me 3000 bucks so that I go away -(and those that actually have a skeleton in the closet which I will demand to be opend in discovery will gladly pay, so I make money just by "guessing") - I ask a judge to order them to open it. And even if i find no skeleton I have my Bone Hunter write an expert report that they resolved the skeleton in acid or provided the wrong closet and they are guilty non the less!
THIS can't be the way how I can get rich in america, can it?
And if it can't, why are those "well-known and respected record companies" via their mouthpiece RIAA allowed to do it non the less now for about 4 years?
The lawyer office that is part of this sheme even were the ones that fist registered the webpage in the name of their own lawyer company (HRO) and not as "RIAA" that they used initialy in this great business modell!
Ray you don't know any other nonetical lawyer in your great contry beside those that already work for RIAA that would be willing to start such a business with me, do you?
"No party has requested a trial by jury."
Say what?
Regards,
Art
or simply written over in the course of time
This is an outright bald-faced assertion that the Plaintiffs are searching the deleted "free space" areas for their "evidence". Existing files aren't written over in the course of time in a properly operating computer system.
The passage of time also means that some witnesses will be difficult or impossible to locate.
There are "Witnesses"? Someone directly observed the infringement in action? And just who are these people? What did they see? Why haven't we heard about them before? Where have they been in all these other tens of thousands of cases? This is simply just amazing! We've got Witnesses!!
XK-E
Of course, they didn't get their extortion "settlement" right away. If only there was a way they could search through an individual's private life to dig up something else to use to extort a "settlement" from them.
Who has time to wait for "decisions"? Can't the RIAA be police & judge & jury? Silly Judges getting in the way.
Q
If that is the case maybe I should ask my bank for a credit (to get the fraud machine running first) then I sue for something I claim I have rights in and I can reasonably assume I will get some hits when I pick the defendants randomly from an american yellow pages book.
It does not matter that I have no actual evidence -that would pass any court test if the court knows what it must judge over- of actual wrongdoing by the defendants that I picked with a highly propritary method out of the yellow pages
THIS can't be the way how I can get rich in america, can it?
I've wondered about that, too. But I'm betting that's one of those things that only works for the wealthy and well-connected.
without wanting to seem overly stupid, when it's been MORE THAN A YEAR since the motion to dismiss on the basis of "making available" -- why is that motion still pending?
I mean, Ghods know I am not particularlly on the RIAA's side in this case, but on the other hand, why is the judge setting on the motion to dismiss instead of moving the case forward?
I certainly understand why the RIAA would send a "For god's sake get off your duff" letter.
Rick Boatright,
Just a guess on my part, but I suspect that no judge wants to be the first to stick their neck out on such a serious decision. So all of them are holding back waiting for some other judge to decide the "Making Available" question, and see how it hold up on appeal. Being reversed on important issues can't be great for your future career as a judge.
The other big issue is the question of "Copyright Misuse". I'm sure that the RIAA truly fears that this might become a valid defense against cases where they screw up Big Time - which they've done notably too often in these tens of thousands of boilerplate cases with illegal evidence and fraudulent declarations by their so-called expert.
XK-E
Post a Comment