Monday, September 28, 2009

Lava v Amurao appeal argued on September 23rd, decision reserved

I attended the argument of the appeal in Lava Records v. Amurao on September 23rd.

The Court reserved decision.

During the appellant's initial argument, and the appellees' opposing argument, the questions of the judges focused on the specific facts of the case, primarily (a) a letter Mr. Amurao had sent prior to the lawsuit incorrectly indicating that "we" had engaged in file sharing, even though he himself had never engaged in it, and (b) Mr. Amurao's testimony at his deposition.

However, when Mr. Amurao's attorney, Richard A. Altman, rose for the rebuttal argument, the focus of the Court's questioning shifted to the type of evidence the RIAA had garnered prior to pursuing Mr. Amurao, i.e., the MediaSentry activities.

None of the members of the Court appeared familiar with those procedures. By the end of that final portion of the argument, however, they seemed to have understood that the MediaSentry investigation and subpoena could at best have led the RIAA to a computing device and to an an internet access account, but could not have identified an individual who had committed copyright infringement.




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

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"but could not have identified an individual who had committed copyright infringement"

Please, please, please let this be the beginning of the end of MediaSentry and their unscientific, inconclusive and just flat out wrong investigations!!

derivative said...

Thanks for the update.

Many of us were (and now still are) waiting with bated breath for this one.

Ray Beckerman said...

I wouldn't get all excited about it. This one had very unusual facts, since Mr. Amurao had sent a letter saying "we" had done file sharing.

In most of these types of cases defendant just advised the RIAA that they had not done it. And then the RIAA sued them.

Timothy Reynolds falsely suggested to the judges that the reason that they went ahead with pursuing Mr. Amurao was that he had admitted that "we" had done it.

Anonymous said...

I understand the unhappiness with Media Sentry, but it seems to me the bigger issue is the oft repeated claim "detected an individual". It is total nonsense, but no one seems to be able to come up with a wooden stake to drive through its heart.

Kip

Tanya Andersen said...

"Timothy Reynolds falsely suggested to the judges that the reason that they went ahead with pursuing Mr. Amurao was that he had admitted that "we" had done it."

Hmmm....I wonder what their reasoning was for going ahead and pursuing me?

Anonymous said...

Kip, what do you mean? In terms of knowledge and reasoning, it's clear why the "detected an individual" claim is nonsense. The stake is already in its heart. We're just waiting, hoping the appeals court here will observe this fact.

XYZZY