Wednesday, April 15, 2009

RIAA asks judge not to consider working paper coauthored by Prof. Samuelson

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has filed papers opposing the Free Software Foundation's motion for leave to submit supplemental authority.

The opposition accuses Prof. Samuelson of having written the paper for purposes of the case, and dismisses her as a "copyright reformist".

Opposition to motion for leave to file supplemental authority



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

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

And this is a surprise... how?

TomasG

Ray Beckerman said...

Tomas, as you know I don't only report on "surprises".

I'm here to provide information, some of it surprising, some not.

Besides, the only thing I find surprising is that some of the RIAA's lawyers haven't been sanctioned yet.

Dave said...

Copyright reformist, is she?
And whose lobbying efforts brought us the DMCA, term extensions, etc., etc? Why, none other than the various industry associations of which the accuser is one.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Ray Beckerman said...

Excellent point, Dave. The RIAA are the biggest "reformists" in the business.

And while scholars like Prof. Samuelson seek to achieve reform through scholarship and reason, and concerned judges like Judge Michael Davis seek to achieve reform by calling attention to the need for statutory amendment in their decisions, the RIAA does it by spending millions upon millions of dollars lobbying, gaining access to congressional hearings (access which is denied the victims of their attacks), influence peddling, hosting "inaugural balls", sending out false letters and press releases, and God knows what other nefarious activities they use to achieve self serving "reform".

Alter_Fritz said...

make up your own mind, if the Argumentum ad Hominem by Holme Roberts & Owen's lawyer Timothy M. Reynolds is warrantable (i.e. that they indeed lack reasonable arguments for the ridiculous amount of $750 to $150000 for something net worth ~$0.35 each) and that Holme Roberts & Owen lawyers therefor must resort to name calling, by reading the offered "evidence" yourself:

Pamela Samuelson, Preliminary Thoughts on Copyright Reform, 2007 UTAH L. REV. 551 (2007), archived at
http://www.webcitation.org/5XyBZzLml


hth

--
A_F