Thursday, April 17, 2008

RIAA says MediaSentry's legal problems in Massachusetts are irrelevant to Ms. Lindor's request for documents on MediaSentry licensing in New York

In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has written to the Magistrate Judge saying that MediaSentry's legal problems in Massachusetts are irrelevant to Ms. Lindor's request for documents on MediaSentry's licensing in New York, and asked the Judge to disregard the cease and desist order issued by the Massachusetts state police.

April 17, 2008, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel to Hon. Robert M. Levy (re Massachusetts cease and desist order)*
April 17, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Robert M. Levy (re Massachusetts cease and desist order)*
Exhibit A- printout from LaFace v. Does 1-17, showing capture dates after date of cease and desist order)*

* 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

To contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense, see below.

















The above donation button 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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

without reading his or your argument first:

If it is irrelevant that their criminal investigator is in legal trouble already in another state, why isn't it then irrelevant too what those other courts ("indeed hundrets of courts accross the country have done this and that" as their favourite argument lately when it comes to illogic discovery grantings against Universities as ISPs for example) have done in those cases that they like to list in bulk?!

Anonymous said...

Ray,

In Electra v Licata, RIAA argues that defendant invoking a 5th amendment privilege can be interpreted as they are essentially guilty. Wouldn't that be true here as well? If MediaSentry and/or RIAA refuses to produce a NY investigator's license in response to the discovery request, shouldn't the judge grant the motion to compel? And when no such license is produced shouldn't he make a ruling that MediaSentry is unlicensed in NY for the purposes of this case and dismiss the lawsuit?

Regards,
Art

Russell said...

Interesting.

First, whether the actions in another state are of relevance, the issue remains to whether they are complying with NYS law. As Ray stated, the fact that they were not in compliance in another state justifies asking about it for NYS. And how could the issue of whether the evidence gathered is done properly NOT be germane to the defense?

That's law 101, exclude the evidence and where is the case?

Second, the resolution of the issue in Mass is bizarre. The RIAA approach is, we explained why we don't comply, so unless we hear from you otherwise, we are taking that as concurrence in our position.

I must admit that I have sent letters like that "If you have no objection, I will take that as your approval". But never after I was told no. In tohose cases, I have always had to get explicit approval.

I don't know how C&D letters work but I would have assumed that they remain in effect until lifted. And the RIAA has no evidence ("heard nothing")that the order was rescinded. Is there any mandatory response period for the Mass SP?

I wonder what the escalation process is and who would have standing.