In Lava Records v. Amurao II, the RIAA's case against Rolando Amurao's daughter Audrey, the defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, on the basis of the statute of limitations, the insufficiency of the plaintiffs' moving papers, the legal insufficiency of the RIAA's case for "making available", and unconstitutionality of the RIAA's "statutory damages" theory.
Defendant's memorandum of law in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment
Commentary & discussion:
Slashdot
p2pnet.net
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:
"First, there is no Gnutella computer. Defendant’s software was Limewire."
The above is from page 17. I hate to point out this flaw, but limewire is a gnutella client. Gnutella is the network that is not restricted to one application or developer.
I believe that would also affect any argument (not sure I have read it here) that the software used by mediasentry was different and the evidence gotten should not be used. Since a client connecting to this open network has no expectation that the other people on the network are using the same software.
But then again I could be wrong.
This man finds this filing interesting in the sense that the RIAA attempts to punish both ends of the copying transaction. That you're guilty when you initiate the action to download song files from someone else onto your computer; and that you're guilty when someone else without your knowledge or active involvement initiates the action to download song files from your computer onto their computer. Yet in each instance only a single copy is made. How can one copy implicate two distant and otherwise unrelated people?
From Dr. Doug: “I will testify that based on the hard drive supplied that the Amurao
computer contains evidence showing that sound recordings continued to be downloaded through the Gnutella computer after June 1 2005 through at least st September 13, 2008.”
How can Dr. Doug maintain that song files were downloaded through [a P2P program] after or on any date? Because there are song files on that computer with later dates? THAT PROVES NOTHING ABOUT DOWNLOADING. The Plaintiffs admit that there are no logs of file transfer actions so that they cannot ever prove when or how files arrived on any given computer, or if they were ever copied off of it. For Dr. Doug to claim such psychic powers defies belief.
{The Common Man Asking}
" The Plaintiffs admit that there are no logs of file transfer actions so that they cannot ever prove when or how files arrived on any given computer, or if they were ever copied off of it. For Dr. Doug to claim such psychic powers defies belief. "
So far, the plaintiffs haven't had to prove
anything at all to prevail.
They know it, they can say whatever they
want and it will stick.
Makes me sick to my stomach.
Dreddsnik
You write in the Slashdot summary,
According to sources, the RIAA is unhappy about Audrey's motion, and is preparing a letter to send the Judge asking the Judge not to allow her to make it.
Is it common for a party to lobby to prevent an adversary's filing, as opposed to simply fighting the motion on its merits once it is filed?
This motion hits all the right points. Hopefully the RIAA will be smacked down for their procedural nonsense and forced to argue against the motion on the merits (where they will not do so well).
Post a Comment