Wednesday, October 08, 2008

RIAA files its Appellees' Brief in Lava v. Amurao, does not dispute 7th Circuit 'throwing in the towel' cases

In Lava v. Amurao, the Second Circuit appeal of a lower court order denying Mr. Amurao's request for attorneys fees, the RIAA has filed its opposition, or Appellees', brief, arguing that its lawyers had acted properly and that it was Mr. Amurao's fault that he incurred fees defending himself.

This is the case in which Mr. Amurao pointed out to the Second Circuit the recent Seventh Circuit cases which held that a prevailing copyright defendant is presumptively entitled to an attorneys fee award, even where the victory comes about as a result of the plaintiff's having 'thrown in the towel'.

The RIAA did not dispute that proposition.

Appellees' Brief

Commentary & discussion:

eZee.se




Keywords: lawyer 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

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

This man is truly left to wonder both how the RIAA could fill up 88 pages in an Appellee's Brief, and how they could argue with a straight face that it’s the Defendant's fault that they couldn't bring their case to trial and had to dismiss it because they'd sued the wrong person that the Defendant isn't entitled to attorney's fees for their gross carelessness and negligence.

To then complain that he refused their "offer" of a global settlement that still included him in the case, required him to dismiss all his counterclaims, and bear all his own fees, is beyond the pale.

Also how they can claim from the very second page that "substantial copyright infringement took place on a computer in Amurao's home and through his Internet account" when they are unable to show that a single unauthorized transfer ever occurred.

In the final analysis, the RIAA should be found guilty and required to pay all the Defendant's fees from their meritless suit from their own admissions here alone.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

This man is truly left to wonder both how the RIAA could fill up 88 pages in an Appellee's Brief, and how they could argue with a straight face that it’s the Defendant's fault that they couldn't bring their case to trial and had to dismiss it because they'd sued the wrong person that the Defendant isn't entitled to attorney's fees for their gross carelessness and negligence.

To then complain that he refused their "offer" of a global settlement that still included him in the case, required him to dismiss all his counterclaims, and bear all his own fees, is beyond the pale.

Also how they can claim from the very second page that "substantial copyright infringement took place on a computer in Amurao's home and through his Internet account" when they are unable to show that a single unauthorized transfer ever occurred.

In the final analysis, the RIAA should be found guilty and required to pay all the Defendant's fees from their meritless suit from their own admissions here alone.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

These Plaintiffs like to throw around Noerr-Pennington immunity as though it means they can sue anybody without conclusive evidence against them and never have to compensate their victims for their own mistakes. If this were true then a rich Plaintiff could harass without limit anyone they wished through the legal system. I'm pretty sure that's not what the founding fathers meant by the right to petition your government.

Also these Plaintiffs say that they identified the Defendant's daughter as the infringer through their own efforts. If they're able to identify infringers on their own in this manner shouldn't they be required to investigate properly and get it right in the first place - and pay compensation when they screw up? It seems to me that these Plaintiffs are trying to fraudulently use the courts to force open discovery and aid in their investigations in places they wouldn't be allowed to conduct otherwise. And they're getting the courts to go along by submitting fraudulent evidence, legal conclusions, lies, threats, and an avalanche of saying that "Hey, all the other courts are letting us do this" in filing their suits against anyone they can find to start suing.

This case is one of many that shows that THE RIAA LAWYERS SUE THE WRONG PEOPLE, and then pretend that it wasn't their fault in the first place.

Lastly they maintain that the infringing files are on the family computer therefore this Defendant simply had to know that they were there and that this proves that he was lying all along. Hey, I hate to burst anybody bubble but my own computer has well over 130,000 files on it. I know this because this is the number scanned by my anti-virus program. I haven't got a real clue as to what most of these files are and have no reason to look into each individual one and find out. It is just an outrageous lie to maintain that even if the infringing files were still on the family computer that anybody, except possibly the person who put them there, would be expected to know about them.

I really pray for the Appeals Court to be smarter about this than the district judge has been.

XxX

Anonymous said...

Ray,

I have a question, what can a citizen do about attorneys making knowing false statements?

Do we file complaints with the bar or with the judge?

I would appreciate?

---blhseawa

Ray Beckerman said...

Dear blhseawa

This site is not for giving legal advice. It is for reporting on legal news.

If you want legal advice, you have to consult with an attorney.

Scott said...

You would think that with the world economy in the tank, the recording industry would stop wasting money on junk litigation like this. They must hate themselves even more than they hate their customers.

eZee.se said...

Hey Ray!

I would appreciate a link back from this article to our article here:
http://ezee.se/articles-blog/2008/10/11/riaa-why-should-we-pay-for-our-mistakes/

We would also like to know what do you think will happen here? (if you are a betting man) would you bet on this poor soul getting money for proving his innocence or...?

Regards,
Ryan

Usage May Vary said...

I really hope they push Noerr Pennington. It would do a ton of good to the US to have that whole doctrine removed, such as preventing the RIAA from paying lobbyists.