Thursday, May 22, 2008

Answers filed by defendants in Andersen v. Atlantic class action

In the Oregon class action against the RIAA and its codefendants, Andersen v. Atlantic, the defendants have filed their answers to the complaint.

Answer of RIAA, Settlement Support Center LLC, and record companies*
Answer of SafeNet a/k/a MediaSentry*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:
Ars Technica

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...

It's nice to see this case moving along, but did anyone really expect to see anything else in the defendants response except, "Nope, Your Honor, we did nothing wrong."?

I can't wait for the RIAA's house of cards/lies to fall.

Scott said...

I'm always fascinated by how lawyers work.

Lane Powell PC (Kenneth Davis and William Patton) are the local attorneys in Oregon representing both the record cartel and SafeNet. But the answers filed by these two parties are very different in writing style. I'm assuming that the cartel's answer was written by HRO in Denver, and SafeNet's answer was written by Thomas Mullaney of New York City.

As a non-lawyer, comparing these two very similar answers, it seems to me that the HRO team's diction is fluffy and verbose, while Mr. Mullaney's is terse and to the point. As a judge, I think I would appreciate Mr. Mullaney's writing more than HRO's.

It will be interesting to compare the work of these two attorneys as the case moves toward trial.

Anonymous said...

7.25 Defendants deny that they were aware that the lawsuit filed by the Record Company Defendants was damaging to Plaintiff.

How can such a lie be permitted to stand in a sworn document? Do they truly think that the Plaintiff was better off for being sued and harassed by them? That they were doing her a favor by trying to prevent the wrong person from committing further copyright infringement? (Although considering what they were accusing gotokito of listening to, it might well have been a favor to shut down that music.)

7.26 Defendants deny having knowledge of the allegedly deleterious effects that any of their acts had on Plaintiff’s physical or psychological condition.

Another HUGE LIE — for all of the same reasons as my previous answer.

I think that the Defendants should be cited for overuse of the word "deny" in their response.

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

So did everything that the RIAA has filed. Wait! That's exactly why we do have a cause of action here. Because you (the RIAA) didn't!

Plaintiff has not and cannot allege an actual arrest or a seizure of property or injuries beyond those which are a common burden on parties to litigation, as more fully set forth in Defendants’ prior motion to dismiss.

I guess that the RIAA doesn't consider running up a couple hundred thousand dollars in legal bills to be anything more than a common burden. MONEY IS PROPERTY YOU FOOLS, AND YOU TRIED TO SIEZE AS MUCH OF IT FROM INNOCENT PEOPLE AS YOU COULD GET YOUR GRUBBY HANDS ON! I'd have to say that the Plaintiff was plenty injured by the Defendant's actions.

Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, if any.

Oh right, and how does a Plaintiff (Defendant in the original suit) mitigate her damages in against your lawsuit that started all this? Settle for your extortionaire demands instead?

And from MediaSentry itself:

85. The damage alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff was caused in whole or in part by her own culpable conduct.

In short, according to MediaSentry the Plaintiff here was downright guilty as sin here of the original offense, and only through some stupid court error was let off the hook and allowed to file this countersuit. We know this because we're MediaSentry, and we NEVER make mistakes!

1. For dismissal of plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice;

2. For SafeNet’s costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be
determined at the time of trial;

How very curious, and illogical! You want the suit dismissed, yet you intended to determine damages at trial. Excuse me, but if the suit is dismissed, how is there going to be a trial after that?


Anonymous said...

It is David VS. Goliath.
Our prayers and hopes are with Tanya Andersen and all those who have been wronged by those in large organizations such as the RIAA. They use all the tools available to them to tweak current laws into devices which mold new and perverse laws that the record companies want. Watch the votes of your legislators. You will know which way their hearts and minds have been turned.

And a special thanks to Ray Beckerman for the outstanding job of keeping the rest of the world informed. Major media seems to be afraid to portray what really is happening when simple people are threatened with such heavy handed tactics. The utter lack of respect for the sanity, health, and well-being of those who are wrongfully prosecuted is a crime far worse than any purported by the RIAA.

Rick Boatright said...

Well, at this point, that's about the response we would have expected right?

"We didn't do nothin. We don't know nothing about nobody who did anything that WAS bad, if such bad stuff occurred, about which we know nothing, but this has been a pain so pay us our costs and fees now."

Of course, that's not enough, but perhaps we can get on with discovery now?????

Alter_Fritz said...

Quotes:(emphasis added)

Defendants further note that this opinion is inconsistent with the opinions rendered
by various other federal district court judges
, which Plaintiff does not cite.

Defendants further note that this opinion was rendered without giving the recording
companies any chance to brief the issue and, in any event, is directly inconsistent with numerous other courts that have found that the recording companies’ lawsuits state viable claims.

Defendants further note that this one judge’s position is inconsistent with literally hundreds of other court opinions and, indeed, stands alone among thousands of lawsuits.

6.5 Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 6.5 of the Complaint and affirmatively state that the factual issues in this case are wholly unique to this case, rendering
class certification inappropriate.

Ja, that chain of argument by RIAA and the other evildoers makes sense and is logic, isn't it?! ;-)

And that one is bold!
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, laches, estoppel and unclean
What unclean hands on part of Tanja Andersen? Is the RIAA lawyer confusing who is who here?

Anonymous said...

@alter_fritz I know your favourite affirmative defence was RIAAs 5th. My favourite is Safenets 3rd...

"The damage alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff was caused in whole or in part by her own culpable conduct."

It was her fault that we are unregistered investigators, using spurious methods, both technical and legal in an attempt to extort money from her. She shouldn't have defended herself...

- Joel

Anonymous said...

Reply to Alter_Fritz quoted text:
I really don't understand the logic that "the factual issues in this case are wholly unique to this case" when it was just argued that "this one judge’s position is inconsistent with literally hundreds of other court opinions and, indeed, stands alone among thousands of lawsuits."

Are these replies trying to say that we can compare apples and oranges? How can thousands of other lawsuit decisions be relevant but the facts in this case are wholly unique?
Maybe I just missed something because I don't think like a lawyer does.

Unknown said...

Interesting comment in middle of article referring to Para 8.11 of RIAA response starting on bottom of p.12.

(Need to append both lines as one to get correct url.)

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who saw the RIAA's Tenth Affirmative Defence?

"Plaintiff's claims are groundless and frivolous, entitling Plaintiffs to costs and attorney fees."

I would think a law firm of the caliber of Lane Powell would proofread something before sending it out. Then again, if they're reduced to suing children on behalf of the RIAA, their standards can't be that high.

Alter_Fritz said...

M. Yass asked:
"Am I the only one who saw the RIAA's Tenth Affirmative Defence?"

It seems you are!

*Goes to reread to check it now*

At least if I had noticed it too, you can bet I had rediculed them for that already. ;-)

On the other hand:

Cut them some slack because those lawyers and the well-known and respected record companies they represent aren't yet too used to the fact that THEY are on the recieving side of lawsuits as defendants.
So probably they haven't updated their automated search+replace function in their wordprocessor that replaces "people" and "we" with plaintiffs and defendant respectively to reflect the new situation.

It seems "people" must fight them more so that well-known and respected record companies have to redo their boilerplate procedures.


Alter_Fritz said...

P.S. on the other hand:
maybe that wasn't an typographical error at all, but more like those freudanian ones that reveal the true intentions of people when they speak about something where they need to make the story up as they speak to hide theri true intentions.

So what you quoted might be the truely believe in those hightower offices where they engineered this "sue 'em all, catch dolphins and destroy competition in the digital marketplace"-campaign.