Friday, December 01, 2006

Rae J. Schwartz Responds to RIAA Letter Opposing Her Summary Judgment Request

In Elektra v. Schwartz, the RIAA's case in Brooklyn against a Queens mother who has Multiple Sclerosis and who has never engaged in file sharing or movie downloading, Ms. Schwartz's lawyers have responded to the RIAA's letter opposing her request for a premotion conference or waiver of premotion conference, for her summary judgment motion:

December 1, 2006, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Judge David G. Trager*
Elektra v. Wilke, Affidavit in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery*
Elektra v. Wilke, Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice*

Copies of the prior letters, and of Ms. Schwartz's answer and counterclaim, are as follows:

October 28, 2006, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Judge Trager (In connection with summary judgment motion)*
November 1, 2006, Letter of Richard J. Guida to Judge Trager (In connection with summary judgment motion)*
Answer and Counterclaim*
Exhibit A to Answer and Counterclaim (Amicus Brief in Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster)*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

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


Alter_Fritz said...

RIAA-Richard2 is in his Nov 1st letter refering to a conference on this issue at hand that was sheduled for mid november.
Maybe I missed something here, but is there anything missing regarding that and your "RIAA no law enforcement"-letter from Dec 1st now?

raybeckerman said...

The conference has not yet been scheduled. In fact, Ms. Schwartz has asked the judge to consider waiving the conference, and letting her just proceed with the summary judgment motion.

This is a response to RIAA's November 1st Richard Guida letter opposing our conference request. There was no reference to a mid November conference.

Alter_Fritz said...

ok, sorry then, seems I missunderstand the last paragraph in his letter then.

raybeckerman said...

Well I see what you were talking about. He was referring to the discovery conference scheduled before Magistrate Levy. I don't know why he would try to tie the 2 things together, because the summary judgment motion conference would have to be with Judge Trager, not Levy.

I guess they're really losing their composure. They're forgetting about the court's rules.