Monday, June 07, 2010

RIAA seeks to freeze Limewire assets

Although the case hasn't been concluded yet, the RIAA has sought an order freezing the assets of defendants in Arista Records v. Lime Group.

Plaintiffs' memorandum of law
Proposed order freezing assets

Commentary & discussion:


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


mathinker said...

I might have missed something in my cursory review of the proposal, but I didn't see any exceptions in it for enabling the defendants to continue to fund their own defense.

How could any court possibly agree to such a thing? Is there a precedent for this? Or is there simply no chance whatsoever that the summary judgment can be appealed?

In an age where legal proceedings are so costly, wouldn't an injunction against someone paying for their defense be a blatant infraction preventing due process?

Ray Beckerman said...

IMHO there is no legal basis for this highly premature application.

Sebastien said...

wow, not only do they want an injunction. But they want permission to get a search warrant to obtain all financial documents of Limewire.

Dan said...

Ray, you should probably clear up some confusion, not the least of which is on the RIAA's part... Their claim of $1.5 trillion in damages is based on an incorrect reading of 17 USC 504 in which they claim damages are calculated per act of infringement. But the statute says "per work infringed". So, they'd have to have ownership of 200 million copyrighted works, and prove that each and every one of them was infringed at least once.

While the copyright act has some craziness, it's not that crazy.

Ray Beckerman said...

Dan, LimeWire has a very high priced law firm, Wilson Sonsini; I'm sure they'll cover the bases adequately.

Anonymous said...

"IMHO there is no legal basis for this highly premature application."

So is it your contention that all of the cases cited in the Plaintiffs' brief under the section head "The Court Possesses Ample Authority To Freeze Defendants' Assets Under The Federal Rules And New York Law" are not applicable?

Ray Beckerman said...