Thursday, January 08, 2009

EMI files its response to MP3Tunes papers in Capitol Records v.

In Capitol Records v., Inc., EMI has filed its reply papers responding to MP3Tune's opposition papers, in further support of its motion to dismiss counterclaims, and for an order staying discovery into the subjects of the counterclaims.

Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law

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


Alter_Fritz said...

Now this J&B response by Mr. Bart bears the question do we call it
or plain and simple "Stupidity"?
It seems he willfully does not want to recognise that mp3tunes is NOT offering the songs for download, but the plaintiffs themself are doing it (or some other 3rd parties that might have or have not a license to do so).
Hey Bart you RIAA lawyer you, learn the difference between hosting files and offering links!
Google offers those links too!

Anonymous said...

This man is boggled by the vacuity of EMI's arugments, EMI's logic, and EMI's understanding of the Internet, to wit:

EMI has never claimed that all appearances of its works on the internet are infringing...

If a song, or any other item is available anywhere on the Internet then it is available everywhere on the Internet, which is one vast ocean of links to material. If MP3tunes did not knowingly host on their own servers the entirety of unauthorized EMI content then EMI has no case against MP3tunes. As was shown in the deCSS case (movie companies still cringe at the mention of this program), linking to unauthorized content is very different from knowingly hosting unauthorized content. If linking was illegal then Google would be out of business tomorrow.

This man hopes that the judge in this case is so astute as to realize this and let the counterclaims be fully played out at an actual trial, and discovery against this plaintiff (who participates in one-sided discovery against less well positioned defendants all the time) should be allowed to proceed full-speed ahead. All of this posturing by this plaintiff really is nothing more than a poorly veiled attempt to pull a veil over the truth here and hide their own highly questionable, if not outright illegal, and certainly estoppled practices from the light of day.

{The Common Man Speaking}