Friday, August 15, 2008

Judge denies defendant hi5's adjournment request in Capitol v. VideoEgg

In Capitol v. VideoEgg, defendant hi5 requested an adjournment of the upcoming pretrial conference pending the decision on its motion to dismiss or transfer venue.

The RIAA would not consent.

And the Judge denied the request.

Order denying adjournment request

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

2 comments:

Matthew said...

My understanding of court procedure is elementary and fuzzy at best. What's the significance of this? Is it just another example of the RIAA getting their way despite a lack of rational justification?

Anonymous said...

It does not appear to make a lot of sense to hold hearings on a case that may well be dismissed or moved. In fact, it doesn't make any sense at all unless:

1: The judge feels this is simply a delaying tactic on the part of the Defense.

2: The judge has decided, despite all the papers not even having been filed yet, that this case is going to go forward in his court.

It's especially distressing insomuch as the Defendants have indicated that responding to the case in this distant venue is a substantial burden, and that one would believe it has intentionally been filed in the wrong district/circuit.

{The Common Man Speaking}