In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, plaintiffs have filed their response to the Court's scheduling order.
Plaintiffs' response to scheduling order
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.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Plaintiffs file response to scheduling order in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum
4 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
request: Ray would you be please so nice to check what it is about with this "yet another computer" in another jurisdiction?
ReplyDeleteIIRC there were only 2 (two) computers [both of which are NOT the ones where the alleged/admitted filesharing that was "detected" took place on and where the judge Gertner here already ruled that one of those 2 are irrelevant] at issue so far and not some other computers "far far away".
I'm extremely curious what this is about with this 4th computer in another jurisdiction!
I have no idea what it's referring to.
ReplyDeleteNo problem Ray, I will send Danny a mail then. :-)
ReplyDeleteMIME-Version: 1.0
ReplyDeleteReceived: by 10.223.109.211 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:02:41 +0200
Delivered-To: alterfritz@gmail.com
Message-ID: <ce3a40960906021102g763fc964kb42106c1a75c29db@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Case 1:03-cv-11661-NG Document 837 Filed 06/02/2009
From: Alter Fritz <alterfritz@googlemail.com>
To: dcloherty@dwyercollora.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Mr. Cloherty,
via http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/06/plaintiffs-file-response-to-scheduling.html
I noticed that you claimed that there is a motion to compel the
production of a computer that is located in the district of Rhode
Island pending that your clients are waiting for to be ruled about by
the Court for the District of Rhode Island.
Given that Judge Gertner already ruled that a certain computer out of
a set of 2 is irrelevant, I'm extremely curious what computer this
Rhode Island thingy is about.
It would be nice if you could send me a copy of the papers regarding
this "yet another computer" for free.
Thank you!
"Alter_Fritz"
--
lets see if Daniel is a nice man :-)