Friday, July 04, 2008

Ms. Lindor opposes RIAA attempt to voluntarily dismiss "without prejudice"

In UMG v. Lindor, Ms. Lindor has responded to the RIAA's letter requesting a pre-motion conference for a motion they intend to make seeking (a) voluntary dismissal of their case "without prejudice"; (b) "discovery sanctions"; and (c) a stay of all proceedings.

July 4, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Robert M. Levy (re plaintiffs' motion for dismissal without prejudice, 'discovery sanctions', and a stay
Exhibt A-Jacobson testimony
Exhibit B-Capitol v. Foster
Exhibit C-Atlantic v. Andersen

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
p2pnet.net
Slyck
Afterdawn.com
Tweakers.net (Dutch)




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...

Wouldn't the magistrate judge be aware that he is the wrong person to file this with and reject it?

XxX

Anonymous said...

So, the RIAA doesn't want to pay, yet they've broken innumerable laws against this woman and others like her. Sickening. How can anyone with the RIAA sleep at night knowing how much of a bunch of evil scumbags they really are?

Albert said...

I often wonder if the extra time/money consumed by these motions to resist fees for the Defendant actually total to more money then if they just paid up. If not, I bet it is close....

Thus, this is clearly more than a effort to reduce their total costs. If they just had paid they would not be out the extra attorney time incured to argue the fee motion, and it would have very likely would save them money.

I dont understand why the "Two Dismissal" rule and the Statute of Limitations were not also stated in your response as alternate reasons to consider the dismissal with prejudice. Wasn't Ms Lindor also sued and dismissed as a John Doe??

In any case, looks to me that there are enough reasons to prevent this case from ever coming back to life. They have so completely failed to prove their case.

Albert