Thursday, August 21, 2008

Audrey Amurao files answer in Lava v. Amurao II

In the case against Rolando Amurao's daughter, Lava v. Amurao II, the defendant has filed her answer, containing a number of affirmative defenses.


As in Elektra v. Barker, defendant is challenging the constitutionality of the RIAA's statutory damages theory, and will be filing a Notice of Constitutional Question.

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 portable music player

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This man hopes that Audrey Amurao gets a better judge than the defendant in the Missouri case, Atlantic v. Raleigh below has received.

In regard to the true party of interest here (again referring to the decision refusing to join the RIAA in the Atlantic v. Raleigh case below), if settlement or fines are paid, just who are they paid to? This man believes that the settlement offers all came from a Settlement Support Center, LLC operated by the RIAA with settlements paid to the RIAA. How can they not be plaintiffs in this case if that was the circumstance of pre-trial settlement?

From the Ninth Affirmative Defense (italics indicating this man's own continuation of the argument): Defendant denies having disseminated or distributed any copies of any copyrighted works to anyone at any time and no competent evidence to the contrary has been presented or alleged. (Note: copies to the Plaintiff's paid investigator do not qualify as distributions since a copyright holder cannot violate their own copyrights. Were it otherwise, SafeNet itself would be libel for illegal downloading.)

This man believes one should point out to any judge that the only "crime" that the Plaintiffs have presented any possibly competent, albeit illegally gathered, evidence for is the circumstance being the listed owner of the ISP account allegedly identified as the source of the (non) infringement using methods known to be faulty in other cases – and that this is no crime at all. One should not be allowed to drag a person into a lawsuit based on this alone.

{The Common Man Speaking}