Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Dispute over Attorneys Fees in Warner v. Stubbs

A new dispute over attorneys fees is going on now in Oklahoma in Warner v. Stubbs.

Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees*
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Attorneys Fees*
Defendant's Motion for Leave to Reply, in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica

Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


AMD FanBoi said...

I see that the RIAA believes they've concocted the perfect defense here when they sue the wrong person and don't want to take responsibility for their evil actions. Simply covenant not to sue, trick the judge into dismissing WITHOUT prejudice while throwing out all counterclaims WITH prejudice, and then claim that the Defendant was never the prevailing party. I pray that this position is not allowed to stand, or we'll see it everywhere.

Alter_Fritz said...

now that piece of plaintiffs counsel is something I would call (after I looked the translation up) barefaced!

How dare the defendant that she answered our complaint as intended by FRCP instead of simply saying yes to our extortionate demand. That's truely outragous!!1!one!eleven

After reading his recapitulation of the prior events and how they should be interpreted someone should ask; What does Mr. Martin smoke when he writes such responses?

It's as if I could already hear very faintly on the horizon again a sane judge ruling that this RIAA style representation of the facts is simply "not true.

raybeckerman said...

I don't think you'll see this anywhere else. It was bizarre.

If I were a judge I'd throw the book at these people.