Monday, October 01, 2007

RIAA Files Reply Papers in Support of Motion to Strike Copyright Misuse Defense in UMG v. Lindor

The RIAA has filed its reply papers, responding to Ms. Lindor's opposition papers in support of its motion to dismiss Ms. Lindor's defense of copyright misuse, in UMG v. Lindor.

Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Strike Copyright Misuse Defense*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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

The above donation button links to a PayPal account established by Marie Lindor's family for people who may wish to make financial contributions to Ms. Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. Lindor. Contributions are not tax deductible.


Alter_Fritz said...

they replied with a blank white page?

While I already learned to believe many normaly unbelievable stuff is comming from those label fools, I guess it must be some error on your side with what you uploaded to P&F.
Please can you check it Ray?

raybeckerman said...

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, alter_fritz.

I've fixed it.

It was weak stuff, but it wasn't a blank white sheet.

Art said...

Here they go again!

Plaintiffs want defendant to prove her case prematurely, before any discovery has happened regarding the misuse of copyright defense. The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to show that there is no defense possible (i.e., failure to state a claim) assuming that the defendants' allegations are true.

Their "legal insufficiency" argument fails because they falsely assert there is "no question of fact that would allow the defense to succeed". The fact that is disputed is whether the plaintiffs colluded to ensure no single plaintiff would settle independantly with defendant. The proper procedure is to have discovery first, then have any motions for summary judgment heard, then argue and decide this on the merits during trial.

Also interesting the criteria plaintiffs use to define sham litigation: 1) objectively baseless litigation, and 2) litigation interfering with a competetor. The fact is that the plaintiffs have no evidence linking a real person with their screen shots. To sue an innocent person as part of a fishing expedition to find "the real infringer" is objectively baseless. Also, the "campaign of terror" that includes the instant case is an attempt to stamp out illegal file sharing, but is also intended to stamp out legal file sharing. To that extent, it is litigation interfering with a competetor.

Given the above, the judge must deny the plaintiffs motion to strike. It is in the public interest for this defense to be argued at trial.


raybeckerman said...


this case, accusing a woman who's never even used a computer of being an 'online media distributor', without a stitch of evidence, is the quintessential 'sham litigation', isn't it?

the reply papers were, predictably, weak... i can't imagine judge trager granting their motion... i think when his decision comes down they're going to regret they even made the motion....

raybeckerman said...

Comment deleted. Policy no. 8.