Wednesday, April 09, 2008

RIAA submits "surreply" opposing motion to compel MediaSentry to respond to subpoena

In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has filed a "surreply" opposing Ms. Lindor's motion to compel MediaSentry to respond to the subpoena.

April 9, 2008, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel (surreply opposing motion to compel subpeona response from MediaSentry)*

* 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

5 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

"[...]an obvious match to defendants name"

man, what a silly argument

RichardL.Gabriel@thepiratebay an obvious match to some "well-known and respected record companies"-counsel.

So following his argument it must be him who I like to call RIAA-Rich and he is guilty as charged!

Indie Labels go get him!one!eleven!!

http://thepiratebay.org/user/RichardL.Gabriel/

Shane said...

I see Richard didn't bother to claim that the request for copies of all PI licenses that MS has was untennable--perhaps he's hoping the judge won't notice and just deny everything en masse.

Note the exact phrasing he likes to use "everything in the Lindor file"--which is a handy term or art. It doesn't mean everything pertaining to the case, just everything in the file at the moment. Who knows what used to be in there? You know, documents as they existed before the defendant's name was mysteriously appended to the file--mysterious because MS didn't have any names when they allegedly detected an individual.

I like that Richard says Re nos 3 and 5 that he doesn't know what MS has that isn't in the Lindor file but what ever it is the defense isn't entitled to it, oh, and maybe they are privileged. My, my what mind reading skills they have. Funny, I think a privilege log would solve that. You know, like honest lawyers would cough up during discovery when claiming privilege?

It's also interesting that Richard uses circular logic. MS alleges that a user named jrlindor@kazaa infringed and that that matches the defendant's name. Thus the defense should not be allowed discovery into whether that is really true or how it came to be. So, for the RIAA the accusation is itself proof of the accusation and thus discovery is unreasonable.

Richard likes to make much of the fact that MS supplied .txt files. He does not claim those are the originals, only that they are the same versions as the printed materials. Oh, and that the defendant's mustn't be allowed to verify if they are original by comparing them to the MS back up files, because, er, because, the accusation is proof! And because the defence also want to review the program that makes the accusations! --Yes, amazingly, Richard really represents that checking the facts behind the allegation is un reasonable because what ever MS says is incontrovertible proof.

I finally saw a photo of Richard. Actually a pretty good looking guy, perhaps a tad prettier on the outside than Ray, maybe. Just an other example that real ugliness is on the inside.

Scott said...

"Defendant, however, fails to acknowledge that the data collected by SafeNet included a Kazaa username of jrlindor@kazaa and an IP address that Verizon was ultimately able to connect to defendant. Verizon's identification of defendant coupled with the username jrlindor@kazaa are, on their face, sufficient to show that there was no misidentification here."

That assumes (1) criminals never use identities of other people, and (2) SafeNet's methodology, which we are not allowed to examine, is above reproach. The first assumption beggars belief, and there is far too much evidence to the contrary for any reasonable person to accept the second.

Gabriel must be operating under the assumption that if you say something false or stupid over and over again, eventually a judge will accept it. What threshhold does he have to cross before it is within the realm of judicial modesty for Magistrate Levy to tell him to stuff it?

Anonymous said...

Obviously SafeNet's methods are very shaky if the mere revealing of them would provide a roadmap to evading them. That alone tells you that they're not what they represent themselves to be when they say they do nothing that any other KaZaA user can. If that was the case, every KaZaA user would be evading every other KaZaA user.

Additionally, as I've said below, it's KNOWN that many completely wrong identifications have been provided to ISPs that identify connections not in their logs at all. You truly need to find out how often they've been so wrong in their identifications that it is provable they "identified" an IP address that didn't even exist.

And you've got to know what IP addresses SafeNet itself is using.

Most of all, what made SafeNet target this particular user?

Every bit of this is information outside what they can claim is the Lindor file, and they're scared to death that you'll find out that this emperor truly has no clothes.

XK-E

Shane said...

One hopes that the same deficiencies that leap of the page to the commenters here will also be obvious to the judge.

One wonders if judges become inured to all the lies and don't bother with sanctions anymore...Richard really deserves a judicial smackdown for his shenanigans.