Friday, March 30, 2007

Mississippi Defendant Asks Court to Dismiss RIAA Complaint in Elektra v. Dennis

George Dennis, the defendant in Elektra v. Dennis, in Jackson, Mississippi, has moved the dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative for summary judgment dismissing the case:

Motion to Dismiss Complaint or for Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint*
Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint or for Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint*
Defendant's Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint*

The defendant is represented by Karen Spencer, of Spencer & Spencer, of Jackson, Mississippi.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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

Add to Technorati Favorites

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

didn't he just implicate his teenage daughter by claiming that she may have had the account with kazaa? isn't this what happened in the Foster case (I may have the wrong case) and then the defendant was sued as a secondary infringer?

AMD FanBoi said...

Again someone attacks the RIAA's contention of "ongoing" infringement. Ongoing infringement is one of the most egregious claims the RIAA makes. On the basis of a single snapshot in time, and a single screen capture taken then, they maintain that the infringement (downloading) started long before that moment, and that the "distribution" has continued right up to the present day. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS! It's not like they tracked this user over weeks or months, showing an accumulation of new downloads and file availability, making the claim of "ongoing" purest speculation at best, and an outright dirty lie as less than best. Why can't judges see this?

AMD FanBoi said...

I agree with Anonymous that it was stupid to speculate that his daughter might have had such a KaZaA account even while he didn't. The California letter put it right when it stated that the defendants were not required to speculate who the infringer might be just to satisfy the RIAA, and how such speculation only keeps you stuck in this case longer than otherwise.

Alter_Fritz said...

amd fanboi asked: "It's not like they tracked this user over weeks or months, showing an accumulation of new downloads and file availability, making the claim of "ongoing" purest speculation at best, and an outright dirty lie as less than best. Why can't judges see this?"

Because this "truth might be interesting but it might not be relevant"! You know dear fanboi, if the pocket filling record labels are the plaintiffs, then it doesn't matter that they just speculate or outright lie, they can "buy" justice like they need :-(