Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Motion to vacate default granted, without opposition, in SONY BMG Music v. Stade, Rochester, NY, case

In SONY BMG Music v. Stade, a Rochester, New York, case, against a student who had been studying abroad in Croatia at the time of service of the summons and complaint, the RIAA has changed its position.

After first forcing the defendant's lawyer to make a motion to vacate default, the RIAA lawyers then relented, deciding not to oppose the motion.

Their motion for a default judgment was denied, and the motion to vacate granted.

Order granting motion to vacate default

[Ed. note. How characteristic of Holme Roberts & Owen to force the defendant's lawyer to prepare a completely unnecessary set of motion papers. They are a disgrace to the legal profession. -R.B.]

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

2 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray wrote: They [Holme Roberts & Owen] are a disgrace to the legal profession.

Ray, can you explain me (for free!) what is of counsel* means?

*Kurt Biedenkopf is neither partner of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP nor partner of Holme Roberts & Owen Germany LLP.

http://www.hro.com/attorneys/view/kurt-biedenkopf


Now having a "CDU guy" having something to do with HRO (what is that?) is just on top of the other CDU/CSU guy Norbert Geis that wants to kill de facto innocent persons that are "potential aggressors" [1]

[1]
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/Fahrplan/events/2860.en.html

Lets hope Herr Biedenkopf will never play a mayor role in the HRO-RIAA extortion campaign and if he will, that he does not have talked to much with Herr Geis. Imagine "targeted killing" of potential copyrightinfringers. MPAA Jack had the "Boston Strangler", RIAA has the "American Terrorist Teenager" that devastates them.

Remember the PSA from back then?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/147/
*warning! violent content*

Ray Beckerman said...

"Of counsel" is a very flexible term. It has no specific meaning.

There are many different types of affiliations which go under that heading.

Some are more like tenants; some are more like employees; some are more like partners. Usually there is fee-sharing involved.

A guy with his background is probably there because (a) he brings in business to the firm, (b) they can take care of his daily needs -- office, furniture, secretary, etc., and (c) they can supply legal manpower to do the work he brings in. He probably gets a percentage of whatever legal business he brings in.

If you were working there, as an attorney, secretary, messenger, office manager, etc.... it would make no difference to you what his title is. You would treat him just like you would treat a partner.