Tuesday, February 26, 2008

John Does file reply brief in Arista v. Does 1-21 in Boston

In the Boston University "John Doe" case, Arista v. Does 1-21, the defendant John Does have filed a reply brief responding the RIAA's supplemental opposition memo.

Reply memorandum of law of "John Does"*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property


Anonymous said...

While Doe disagrees with the characterization of its efforts as “misguided,” it is the court opinions which disparage plaintiffs, not Doe. The cases cited by Doe speak for themselves.

I hear the sound of a *Whack*. This one was hit cleanly out of the park.

Plaintiffs’ claim that MediaSentry was employed by its attorneys is in sharp contrast to the Linares Declaration under penalty of perjury that MediaSentry was hired by RIAA to investigate and uncover copyright infringements, rather than by an attorney for plaintiffs. If Linares made a false statement in his Declaration, the entire Declaration, which was the basis for granting the expedited discovery, should be stricken.

*Whack* And may I suggest that among the documents to be subpoenaed from MediaSentry are copies of all the checks used to pay for their services in regard to P2P file sharing. Let's see who actually wrote those checks.

...if plaintiffs knew of the action taken by the Commonwealth against MediaSentry for conducting private investigations without a license prior to the Hearing, they had a duty to inform the Court of the Commonwealth’s action at the oral hearing on the motion of their own accord

*Whack* Plaintiffs have clearly attempted to deceive and misinform The Court. I hope that The Court has an outrage over this.

I also hope that they can somehow fit in the recently revealed decision by Her Honor, Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the District Court of Connecticut, as revealed below here on this blog.


Reluctant Raconteur said...

I think this is a clear and concise summary of the issues regarding MS as an investigator. The RIAA continues to define themselves in such a way that the law does not apply. By using ex parte hearings and default judgments, they try to avoid the legal issues from being reviewed. Where a sufficient defense is raised, they fold their tents and drop the case.

As noted here, they claim a interpretation of the law (making available)that is not supported in reading the law nor in precedent. Yet when they are challenged on points of law such as the MGL, they continually claim it doesn't apply.

The significance of this brief depends on the Judge. But I do think that the reply proves that the issues raised cannot simply be ignored.

In many ways the RIAA reminds me of arguments I have had with the significant other. Their view of reality was not to be swayed by mere facts and how dare I confuse the issue by arguing with facts.

Anonymous said...

Excellent response by Doe!

The AG's opinion is a good read too. This observation was very interesting:

"So low had the vocation fallen in reputation that the rule of law became established connecting the value of the evidence of private detectives with the credence given prostitues."

This gives some historical insight into the unworthiness of evidence collected by unlicensed investigators. (No offense intended towards prostitutes...)


Nick Rout said...

Does it matter whether MediaSentry were employed by RIAA or by RIAA's attorneys? Surely the RIAA's attorneys are agents for the RIAA when engaging an expert or investigator, meaning that the contractual relationship is between RIAA and MediaSentry, no matter that the engagement may have been through the agency of the attorneys. Similarly the source of the funds to pay them is ultimately RIAA, even though RIAA may have paid the attorneys who in turn paid the investigator.

Anonymous said...

nick rout:
According to M.G.L. Ch. 147, Sec 23, it does matter how a private investigation is conducted. It is illegal in Massachusetts to conduct a private investigation without a license. The RIAA tries to argue that it is exempt from licensing because their lawyer hired MediaSentry, which they would like to believe falls under 23(6) "An attorney at law in the practice of his profession." However, this is not true, as Linares declared under penalty of perjury that the RIAA hired MediaSentry.

Thus, they can have it neither way: If the RIAA hired MediaSentry, they shouldn't be able use illegally obtained evidence in a lawsuit. If the law firm representing the RIAA hired MediaSentry, the Linares declaration, upon which the subpoena of student names was granted, should be invalidated. Either way it should result in a dismissal (as long as the Court sees it this way).

It's really nice to see the RIAA get caught in it's own web of lies.