In Arista v. Does 1-27, the Portland, Maine, case targeting University of Maine students, the student attorneys from the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic of the University of Maine School of Law have submitted reply papers in further support of their clients' Rule 11 motion against the RIAA attorneys.
Reply memorandum*
* 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
3 comments:
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court already has rejected Defendants’ argument is simply incorrect.
So very true. There has been no Defendant's argument to reject yet.
Allegations of copyright infringement alone do not entitle Plaintiffs to circumvent Congress’ intent as expressed in FERPA by bringing a civil action with no intention of prosecuting the claims beyond the use of expedited discovery to obtain the students’ identities. Plaintiffs’ remedy lies with Congress, not the courts.
It also does not allow Plaintiffs to circumvent the current language of the Copyright Act and attempt to extend it through the courts in ways never written and passed by Congress (e.g. the infamous "Making Available" argument).
XK-E
Rule 11 seems almost like it is never in fact used. There have been some extreme cases so far that would have clearly drawn sanctions in our state courts here. However it has been my perception that almost anything can be done in the Federal system with no punishment whatsover.
Are sanctions ever handed down under this rule? How much worse does it have to get before it in fact happens for the first time?
My understanding is that the judge can also strike pleadings and defenses as well under the rules. Is this more/less likely than actions under Rule 11??
Albert
Plaintiff's arguments ARE frivolous BECAUSE there is no "Making Available" cause of action or violation of reserved rights under the Copyright Act, and no other proof of violating any of the other rights reserved to the copyright holder.
And because of the fraudulent Declaration of Carlos Linnares who either knows, or should know, what a pack of lies and misrepresentations his so-called Declaration represents.
The sole intent of this case is to coerce settlements, and file individual cases otherwise only to coerce additional settlements in future cases, which has nothing to do with vindicating any rights in this court. In fact, the filing of individual cases afterwards should be considered proof that these cases were never joined in the first place. And the RIAA knows this perfectly well.
-DM
Post a Comment