Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Debbie Foster Opposes RIAA Request for Confidentiality of Its Attorneys Billing Records

In Capitol v. Foster, where the RIAA has under court order produced its attorneys billing records to the defendant's lawyer, but is now asking the Court to designate the documents as "confidential", Ms. Foster has opposed the RIAA's request for confidentiality:

April 3, 2007, Objections to RIAA's Motion for Protective Order*

* 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


Anonymous said...


It seems that one of the secrets that the RIAA is trying to hide is that the RIAA is a plantiff, not just the record companies. I'm assuming that this would mean that the RIAA itself would be liable for a portion of the attorneys fees.

In addition, the RIAA made reactions to all of the documents, but they made the redaction invisible, which makes it difficult for the defense or the court to determine if those reductions were reasonable. In additon, the RIAA are claiming that the documents from which they removed all confidential data are still confidential.

One hopes for a proper admonishment (er, "smack down") from the judge.

Alter_Fritz said...

on topic only insofar as it has to do with confidentality:

as Mr. Ledford already pointed out, your wireless router isn't secure even if salespersons want you to believe it.
Most of those WEP secured devices that might be the cause if you get accused of pirating while a technophile kid down the blog was filesharing on your account were known that the password can be retrieved in less then about 60 minutes. Which is a good defense if you have a smart lawyer.

Now guys from german university showed a new way to do it in even less then sixty (60) seconds(!).

english article fresh from the typewriter here

AMD FanBoi said...

Defendant argues that documents requested are not embarrassing to Plaintiffs. I would suggest that revealing what Plaintiffs have spent on a flawed, losing, stragety is immensely embarrassing -- and totally self-inflicted.

And damaging, since it might encourage other Defendants to fight back.

Alter_Fritz said...

you are NOT supposed to argue PRO plaintiffs here!
Remember RIAA-Richard wants to paint Mr. B's blog as the source of al evil and ill-will against those poor underdog plaintiffs "Rich" (as he close his mails) works for!
Now if you start to argue in their way, you ruin Rich's last hope.

But indeed, the embarassing factor of spending tens (hundrets?) of thousands of dollars to fight one single mother unsuccessful might be seen by Judge West too, and he will grand their motion (which would be unfortunate of course) even if defendant has absolutely no intention what so ever to furnish Mr B. a copy in the first place.

raybeckerman said...

Dear anonymous,

Due to an attack of comment spam by another person named "anonymous" I've had to go back to restricting comments to registered user ID's.