tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post4308737446511787406..comments2024-02-29T03:26:17.906-05:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: California Judge dismisses RIAA case for misjoinder of defendants AND misjoinder of plaintiff record companies in SONY v. Does 1-5raybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-46066595354203078272008-02-14T16:44:00.000-05:002008-02-14T16:44:00.000-05:00In a sad postscript, as if on cue, the defendant -...<I>In a sad postscript, as if on cue, the defendant -- no doubt unaware of how well she was doing in the case thanks to Judge Otero's decency and vision -- almost immediately contacted the RIAA's "Settlement Support Center"</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but what of the severed Does? Has the RIAA since pursued them individually?<BR/><BR/>XK-EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-36332868001650631002008-02-14T16:41:00.000-05:002008-02-14T16:41:00.000-05:00It is unfortunate to realize that these decisions ...It is unfortunate to realize that these decisions are nearly 6 months old, and yet current Doe Defendants seeking to quash cases based on misjoinder of both Defendants *and* Plaintiffs have not had this authority to use in their current fights. The RIAA continues to insist that hundreds of other courts agree with their methods, while omitting reference to all those that haven't. And this is a list the RIAA knows best of all, having been the only party present in most of them.<BR/><BR/>It is also unfortunate that the judge in the case accepted the RIAA arguments otherwise apparently in full, allowing expedited discovery, with only minimal protections, to proceed despite the patiently phony and wrong misrepresentations made by the RIAA at this time. Especially the continuous and ongoing with no shred of proof, as well as the actually distributed argument when only MS ever is shown to have downloaded any files, parts.<BR/><BR/>What I wonder here is where the judge states: <B>Plaintiffs must use the information obtained through the subpoena solely for the purpose of protecting Plaintiffs' rights under the Copyright Act,</B> does that include extortion through the Settlement Support Center, which is entirely extra-judicial in its nature? Or is it possible that the judge meant for the remaining Plaintiffs to only be able to use this information in a far more limited manner?<BR/><BR/>XK-EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-16277605396002443332008-02-14T15:08:00.000-05:002008-02-14T15:08:00.000-05:00Her settlement does not negate the ruling. So her ...Her settlement does not negate the ruling. So her subsequent actions should have no bearing on the effect of this ruling. She may have been wise to settle if she actually did not have the facts on her side.<BR/><BR/>Only time will tell if this becomes a common understanding amongst courts. We can hope.Reluctant Raconteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10156485722227445711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-40372160410801972492008-02-14T13:31:00.000-05:002008-02-14T13:31:00.000-05:00Are the other judges in these cases listening?XK-E...Are the other judges in these cases listening?<BR/><BR/>XK-EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-40421670899273822722008-02-14T11:41:00.000-05:002008-02-14T11:41:00.000-05:00Is this the day the tide turned?-LanolinIs this the day the tide turned?<BR/>-LanolinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com