Friday, March 21, 2008

In UMG v. Lindor RIAA now tries to take depositions of additional relatives in Illinois and Connecticut

In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has served new subpoenas and deposition notices calling for depositions of additional relatives of the defendant, one residing in Illinois, one in Connecticut.

Ms. Lindor has moved to quash, terming the new subpoenas a "fishing expedition".

March 21, 2008, letter motion of Ray Beckerman to quash subpoenas for Illinois and Connecticut depositions*
Exhibit A - Deposition notices and subpoenas*
Exhibit B - Email exchange between Richard L. Gabriel and Ray Beckerman*

* 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


raybeckerman said...

Comment was deleted for violation of comment policy #7.

Jadeic said...

I can well imagine why it was necessary to delete the earlier comment. Thanks, Ray for this most illuminating exchange of emails.

Richard G explains...

'the evidence that we have now developed
shows that both Ms. Raymond and Mr. Lindor used the computer, and particularly the Internet, which, I note, is potentially inconsistent with prior testimony in this case.'

'Developed' eh? - is this akin to 'fabricated'?

'used the computer' - which could lead to the new crime of computer abuse

'potentially inconsistent' - as opposed to the wilfully inconsistent Plaintiff's testimony

Do I hold RG up for contempt and ridicule? You betcha.


Anonymous said...

The contention that Richard Gabriel has identified other "individuals" that used the computer and the Internet is as phony as MediaSentry claiming that they're "identified an individual". I could have sat down at the Defendant's computer and been any of them. It's not like they've lifted DNA off of the keyboard.

Furthermore, if the Plaintiffs believe these other people are the infringers, why are they able to pursue and depose them under the case of the person they would now have to believe isn't the infringer?

And if they don't believe these people are the infringers, why are they able to pursue and depose them at all?

The Plaintiffs are being bloody arses in their ongoing attempts to harass anyone the Defendant may have ever known in order to punish her for fighting back. I hope that the court will realize this and slap Richard Gabriel down hard. There is simply no way any average home user could have ever damaged these so-called record companies to the degree that they're causing all this trouble in return.


Anonymous said...

In light of this request, I'd move to strike whatever version of Lineres Declaration UMG used to initiate the complaint. Clearly there is no way they "identified an individual" if they don't know which individual it was. From there, I'd also move to strike the any documentation about Lindor's internet account, as "unclean hands" and "fruit of the poisoned tree"

I'd also subpoena documents/emails from Richard G/MS/HRO/SafeNet in which they discuss the fact that Marie Lindor was not the "infringer." Especially "given the discovery cutoff of April 30."