Plaintiffs have requested permission to file surreply papers, further objecting to the deposition of Matthew Oppenheim, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.
The papers dispute that Oppenheim should be deposed as the representative of a corporate party, saying that he is only an attorney, even though he has presented himself to various Judges as "the principal" of the record companies, "the only person with settlement authority", "the client", and "the client representative".
Motion for permission to file surreply memo
Proposed surreply memo
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
Legal issues arising from the RIAA's lawsuits of intimidation brought against ordinary working people, and other important internet law issues. Provided by Ray Beckerman, P.C.
Friday, February 27, 2009
RIAA submits further papers resisting Matthew Oppenheim deposition
6 comments:
The RIAA has a habit of citing our blog to judges, so please keep comments dignified and worthy of the important issues we are discussing, in keeping with our comment policies. If you see a violation of the policies, please let me know by email. You can post anonymously, but must sign off by giving us something to call you. Conversations among several people called "Anonymous" get too confusing. Thanks. Best regards. -Ray
Seems the gutless wonder is still duckin' and divin'
ReplyDeleteDave
As with all bullies, who are invariably cowards.
ReplyDeleteminor nit: I think you got the name of the case wrong in your post ("SONY BMG Music v. Entertainment").
ReplyDeleteThe 'RIMPAA's have really learn how to "shuck and Jive".
ReplyDeleteTomasG
Thanks very much for bringing it to my attention!
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most interesting thing about this memo was not what it claimed (which was all to be expected), but that the tone, while still being "outraged", was significantly less strident than the original (with its demand for sanctions).
ReplyDeleteDoes this indicate that the plaintiffs were blindsided by the even-tempered and rational sounding reply from the defendants?
Does this indicate that the plaintiffs, through belated research or some other indication, decided that their previous strategy wouldn't sit well with the judge?
Or are they just trying to keep us guessing?
To me, it seems like a significant back-pedal from "they are abusing the system so badly they need to be seriously punished" to "they are absolutely, unequivocally wrong, and here's why."
Not that the latter statement has any more merit in this instance, but it feels much more like a regular legal document than the original. Is somebody back on their meds?