RIAA asks for extension of time in Capitol v. Thomas; defendant's counsel agree; Court grants extension

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the RIAA has requested -- and received -- a 3 week extension of time in which to file its papers responding to defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. Plaintiffs' papers are now due August 12th. Defendant's reply papers are due August 19th.

Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time
Order extending time

[Ed. note.

In view of the lack of courtesy by the RIAA lawyers, I am appalled and offended that defendant consented to the extension. Those following this case will recall that, when defendant's counsel sought to substitute new counsel just 3 1/2 weeks before the trial, the RIAA adamantly opposed granting any extension at all, just as they adamantly opposed granting defendant the courtesy of an extension in which to file her expert report. Although courtesies of this nature are routine when dealing with normal lawyers, the RIAA lawyers behave like vicious dogs rather than lawyers, and should be treated as such. Defendants' counsel's agreement to this extension is an obscenity.

I can't fault Judge Davis, because judges usually grant adjournments and extensions that the parties have among themselves agreed to. But if I'm Judge Davis, I'm thinking to myself "What?"

-R.B.]



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