Sunday, June 03, 2007

RIAA Files Extra Papers in Lava v. Amurao "Denying" EFF's Attacks

In a very unusual filing, the RIAA has filed an additional document in Lava v. Amurao, several weeks after its motion to dismiss had already been decided, denying the Electronic Frontier Foundation's attacks upon it as "baseless":

Plaintiff's Opposition to EFF's Amicus Brief*

Another oddity is that, although the Court's order denies the motion in its entirety, this "Opposition" document states that the motion was denied only in part. Apparently they are making this contention based upon Judge Brieant's having stated at oral argument that he was inclined to grant the motion as to the Declaratory Judgment counterclaim.

* 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...

I don't get it!
What is Brian talking about?
what I read from the former decissions is that the Judge did denied RIAA's motion to dismiss and that he accepted EFF's "friend of the court helping".

So what?
Is RIAA lawyer saying that THIS filing here should count as the 10 day response to the counterclaims like the judge ruled?

"Motion Dke #15 for leave to file amicus brief is Granted. Motion Dkt#8 is denied. Plaintiff's may respond to Counterclaims within 10 day's."

and how is it explainable that Brian is arguing that EFF's filing is now moot? Is he doing this to trick his clients in staying calm in light of the consequences that might arise from RIAA's well known modus operandi that looks as if it starts comming back at them slowly.

It really looks to me that the guys from Robinson & Cole LLP are actively confusing thier clients so that the labels will not realise that they risk losing their rights in the recordings due to the behaviour of their lawyers that looks like malpractise to me.

raybeckerman said...

1. He's doing an odd thing. Putting in a response -- after the motion's already been decided -- just "for the record".

2. No this is not intended to be the reply to the counterclaims.

3. It is Brian's document that is moot, since it relates to a motion that has already been decided.

4. Yes he is trying to "trick" his clients.

5. There is some legitimate confusion here, in that (a) the order leaves both counterclaims standing, but (b) at the oral argument the Judge indicated he was going to dismiss the declaratory judgment counterclaim. So either the Judge changed his mind, or the order is transcribed incorrectly.

AMD FanBoi said...

Perhaps this is meant to bring the judge's attention back to this case and hopefully (from the Plaintiff's POV) cause him to revise (correct?) his ruling without explicitly attacking that ruling in a way that might anger the judge.

If so, it's sneaky and underhanded.

raybeckerman said...

May well be that it was a devious way of trying to convince the Judge the order didn't mean what it said.