Defendant is resisting the RIAA's attempt to compel an unrestricted examination of her hard drive in SONY v. Arellanes. Her attorneys argue that the RIAA's motion fails to provide appropriate safeguards:
Opposition to Motion to Compel Inspection of Hard Drive*
Defendant's Suggested Protective Order Motion*
The RIAA's initial motion:
Motion to Compel Inspection of Hard Drive*
*Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Mrs. Arellanes is represented by John Browning of Browning & Fleishman, P.C., of Dallas, Texas.
Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs
2 comments:
It continues to astound the layperson at the lengths to which the toadies for the RIAA will go to in the pursuit of inflicting burdensome duties on the defendant.
I claim, even if she did download an MP3, the original copyrighted song was NOT an MP3, and since an MP3 is by definition, a compressed file, not containing all data of the original, then, perhaps, an MP3 should be seen as "limited material used in a non-commercial means for private use" and that the FAIR USE doctrine should apply to such copying of limited amounts of copyrighted materials for non-commercial, critical use.
codewarrior wrote: [...]and since an MP3 is by definition, a compressed file, not containing all data of the original, then, perhaps, an MP3 should be seen as "limited material used in a non-commercial means for private use" and that the FAIR USE doctrine should apply[...]
IANAL and I have no real understanding of US consumers fair use rights, but your thoughts are IMO worth to be thought as a defense. This argument sounds very logic to me.
And since the MAFIAA™ does NOT sell mp3 by themself they could not even argue a a counter argument that those MP3s are infact the copyrighted work itself.
(Let's see what pro-people, pro-culture lawyers think about your argument)
Post a Comment