Friday, July 11, 2008

Parties file reply briefs in Capitol v. Thomas

In Capitol v. Thomas, both sides have filed their reply briefs responding to each other's initial briefs and the amicus curiae briefs.

The judge also granted all of the motions by the amicus curiae for their briefs to be accepted.

Oral argument is scheduled for Monday, August 4th, at 10:00 A.M., in Courtroom 1, at the federal courthouse in Duluth, Minnesota, and is open to the public.

Plaintiffs' Reply Brief
Defendant's Reply Brief

Commentary & discussion:

Duluth News Tribune

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


anna johnson said...

It leaves me speechless. It is as if the Plaintiffs in the case are reading a whole different set of submissions to the court from the rest of us. They are like a racehorse with blinkers specially designed so that they are not disrupted in their purpose by anything in their way: least of all the due process of law. Unbelievable! Nothing changes. They are still determined to make the law up as they go along - 'the law is what we say it is not what the rest of your fools think it is.'

'As Plaintiffs’ brief demonstrated, a defendant violates a copyright owner’s exclusive right to “distribute” by making copies available for physicaltransfer without authorization, whether or not the physical transfer is consummated in
any particular instance.' [PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF PURSUANT TO MAY 15, 2008 ORDER Page 2] may be in line with 'Copying a song you’ve paid for in CD form is “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy,’” Sony (root kit) BMG top lawyer Jennifer Pariser testified during cross-examination in the Jammie Thomas case in early October.[Quoted widely in the mainstream media and blogs at the beginning of the year] but ignores (surprise, surprise) the vehement qualifications of Pariser's statement to the court made in the press when faced with a growing PR catastrophe. The key to the argument, then as now, is whether placing a copy of a CD track anywhere on your computer where it can be accessed via the internet constitutes unauthorised distribution and hence an infringement of copyright. I'm sorry RIAA guys, no matter how often you shout it from the rooftops, you lack the omniscience of a Startrek Captain: you can not 'make it so'.


Anonymous said...

Howell is cited repeatedly in the defendnt's brief. It is un mentioned in the plantiff's.

Kip Patterson

Alter_Fritz said...

Jadeic (Dave that forgot to change the account of his wife once again :-P) wrote:

"I'm sorry RIAA guys, no matter how often you shout it from the rooftops, you lack the omniscience of a Startrek Captain: you can not 'make it so'."

How much are you willing to bet that they would like to command something like this(*) these days since it seems to went very baaad for them? and remember their "Captain Jean-Gabriel" already used the emergency rescue capsule to leave the USS-RIAA :-P

(*)mp3 file 22.778 Bytes direct link. I claim fair use, parody and "poking fun at RIAA"-rationale!

Scott said...

"The unambiguous language of Section 106 and the great weight of authority trump
the tortured dicta, letters of the Register and other submissions of plaintiffs."

If torturing dicta were a crime, then Holme, Roberts & Owen would be facing the death penalty.