Friday, March 02, 2007

Rae J Schwartz Replies to RIAA Opposition to her Guardian Ad Litem Motion in Elektra v. Schwartz

Rae J Schwartz has filed reply papers, in Elektra v. Schwartz, responding to the RIAA's opposition to her motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem, based on her condition resulting from Multiple Sclerosis:

March 2, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Magistrate Robert M. Levy*
Exhibit A (Docket Report in Priority v. Chan II)*
Exhibit B (February 13, 2006, order in Priority v. Chan II)*
Exhibit C (March 27, 2006, order in Priority v. Chan II)*
Exhibit D (Amicus curiae brief of ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in Capitol v. Foster)*
Exhibit E (February 6, 2007, decision in Capitol v. Foster)*
Exhibit F (Excerpts from transcript of deposition of Dr. Doug Jacobson, UMG v. Lindor, February 23, 2007)*

* 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


Alter_Fritz said...

Soo lets see what have we here:
The plaintiffs indicate that they already at this stage of the suit believe or at least thought strongly about it, that a minor is (at least someway) responsible for the alleged conduct or maybe even the "direct infringer" like they coin it and told in other cases that they prefer to sue these kind of infringers. But that minor isn't named yet in this action as a party.

I don't know if it is OK in New York to continue to sue someone else even if you already believe or strongly think that he is not the guy that did what you allege that has happened to you.

What I believe however, is that this starts to sound now like a perfect example for that what Judge West described as the reason for HIS ruling about costs. And that this sounding gets clearer every minute the plaintiffs continue to refuse to either bring charges against the believed infringer too or to drop the charges against the person that they themself oviously believe already to be NOT the "direct infringer".

raybeckerman said...

Indeed it is, which is why we cited Judge West's decision.