Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Ms. Lindor's Son and RIAA In Dispute Over Attorneys Fees

In UMG v. Lindor, where the Magistrate denied the RIAA's motion to compel Ms. Lindor's son to produce his desktop computer, Ms. Lindor's son's attorney has requested an award of attorneys fees, which the RIAA opposes:

April 2, 2007, Letter of Richard Altman (Re: Attorneys Fees)*
April 3, 2007, Letter of Richard Gabriel (Re: Attorneys Fees)*

* 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...

Help me Ray please. (serious "Isn't it?" question follows!!)

from Mr Altman's letter I read that he had previously jsut mentioned the fees issue and that he now reminds the Judge Levy about it. I do NOT read that the judge already ruled on that question of fees for that specific motion to compel issue.

But from reading Mr. Gabriel's letter the wording he choose in the beginning and in the mainpart of the letter it sounds as if the judge ALREADY RULED on that question.

RIAA-Richard's wording that suggest a specific prior behaviour from the judge isn't what the judge had done so far, this is just another bad faith attempt of the RIAA bastards to trick an old man judge, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

The Plaintiff is arguing the point of law regarding attorney's fees under FRCP 37(a)4(b), while the Defendant made the motion for attorney's fees under the copyright statute ("prevailing party"). It seems both parties are correct: Attorneys fees should be awarded to the Defendant under the copyright statute, and not under FRCP 37. If the Plaintiff claims the Defendant is not a "party", they need only look at their own motion where they claim he is a party.

raybeckerman said...

The judge hasn't ruled on attorneys fees yet.

He's not an "old man"... at least not by my standards.

AMD FanBoi said...

The RIAA harasses a non-party to the suit, is told by the judge they can't really do that any longer, and now doesn't want to pay for their mistake. Is that about it?

Anonymous said...

All I meant was to ask Judge Levy to rule on the issue of fees. I originally asked for them in my papers opposing the subpoena, but he did not rule one way or the other. Since Mr. Raymond is not a party, he is not requesting fees under sec. 505, but pursuant to Rule 45(c)(1), governing subpoenas to nonparties.
I just thought I would clear up the confusion....

Alter_Fritz said...

Thanks Mr. Altman for this clarification.

Like I thought, the bad HROguy again is misleading the court with what he writes. That's so typical for these bad guys!