In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, targeting students at the State University of New York in Albany, a case in which an appeal has been filed and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued an interim stay of the subpoena directed to SUNY Albany, the RIAA has filed papers opposing defendant's motion for a stay pending appeal.
Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to motion for stay pending appeal
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
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
RIAA argues against Second Circuit stay in SUNY Albany case, Arista Records v. Does 1-16
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What outright filthy liars these RIAA Plaintiffs are.
Defendant Has Failed To Show Any Irreparable Injury.
Excuse me BUT, the irreparable injury happens the moment these Plaintiffs get their contaminated hands on these names, after which they will use every legal trick in the book, except for going to trial on the merits, to badger, harass, intimidate, extort, and many other actions that should be illegal against them – all the while never having proof that a single copy of any song that they allege to hold the copyright to was ever disseminated.
Plaintiffs Will Suffer Substantial Injury If A Stay Is Issued.
Oh really? And how is that possible? Do you really think that any of these Defendants are still filesharing – provided that you actually identified the right people in the first place, which is a big IF?
Could it be that the "substantial injury" that the Plaintiffs whine about here in regard to protecting their copyrights is the fear that someone might finally point out that They Have No Case – and never did?
To state a claim for copyright infringement, Plaintiffs need only allege:
(1) that they own valid copyrights.
Let's see them. Not just sheets of paper but something that proves that a copyright exists, and also proof that this recording is the copyrighted recording.
(2) that Defendant violated one or more of the excusive rights un 17 U.S.C.§ 106 by, for example, copying or distributing Plaintiffs' copyrighted works.
Okay show me Copying! What? You can't show that the song in question is an illegal copy?
Okay, how about show me Distribution! What? You can't show me that anyone other than your paid investigator ever downloaded a copy of this file? Attempted Distribution isn't in the Copyright Act and you're SOL!
The biggest lie of all is that this is a blatant attempt by the Plaintiffs to perform an end-run around the entire appeals process. Once they get their subpoena and the names from the university this whole appeal is moot because that is all they intended to get from this case. That information, once released, can never be recaptured again.
This outrageous attempt to turn the tables and claim that the Plaintiffs are the ones being continually harmed and that the subpoena does no harm to the Defendants in the process disgusts this man, and should be met with the most severe sanctions possible from the Court for outright misrepresentation.
{The Common Man Speaking Common Sense}
Hmmm, section "Preliminary Statement" 3rd sentence. What is wrong with that one?
If you know the answer, and you are a judge, then but Mr. Reynolds behind bars!
Thank you.
It's remarkable how often Plaintiffs repeat or paraphrase, "The First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement".
I would have characterized Defendant's position as something like the inverse. Which is to say, "The First Amendment does shield speech that isn't copyright infringement."
XYZZY
Comment rejected because of language choice.
Post rejected because subject matter was "civil disobedience"... way outside the scope of this blog, which is about following the law.
Post a Comment