Monday, February 11, 2008

Student Attorneys of Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic File Objections to Magistrate's Decision Denying Dismissal

In Arista v. Does 1-27, a case targeting University of Maine students, the student attorneys at the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic have filed objections to so much of the Magistrate Judge's decision as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint.

They agreed, however, with the Magistrate Judge's assessment of the RIAA's misstatements of facts, in order to improperly obtain joinder, as "gamesmanship" worthy of Rule 11 sactions.

Objections of Defendants John Doe #16 and 18 to January 25, 2008, Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kravchuk*

* 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


Art said...

This is a well written objection to the recommended decision. Especially so when you consider it is submitted by "Student Attorney for Does #16 & #18. I think the RIAA has more to fear than from Harvard!


Anonymous said...

The sole purpose of the Complaint in this action is to manipulate the judicial system to obtain confidential educational records that would otherwise be protected by the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act, 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b)(2)(B) (“FERPA”), and then to use that information to intimidate the individual students into paying excessive settlement amounts.

Now that says it all. It's exactly that, along with illegally gathered, imprecise, evidence, and nothing more. Now it's up to the judge to decide if this is really a valid use of the United States Federal Judicial System, or not. light of the fact that the Plaintiffs have no intention of seeking a vindication of their rights through this proceeding.

And that alone should be fraud on the court.

Accordingly, nothing short of dismissal is warranted.

Along with severe sanctions on the plaintiff due to the fact that this far from their first violation of these rules, despite being warned many times. Additional warnings will clearly not serve the necessary deterrent effect.

-Dodge Magnum