Friday, May 23, 2008

Marie Lindor asks Magistrate Levy to reconsider ruling allowing MediaSentry to refuse to answer subpoena in UMG v. Lindor

Marie Lindor has made a motion for reconsideration in UMG v. Lindor, asking the Magistrate to recall his previous decision denying her motion to compel MediaSentry to respond to the subpoena duces tecum she had served.

Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. Robert M. Levy (reconsideration of May 16th order denying motion to compel MediaSentry response)*
Exhibit A -- May 16th order*
Exhibit B -- November 14, 2007, Subpoena*
Exhibit C -- May 13, 2007, article from Chronicle of Higher Education*
Exhibit D -- May, 2007, declaration of Tom Mizzone*

* 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

To contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense, see below.

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.


Anonymous said...

First I must compliment Marie Lindor that she found such a patient counsel that still hasn't lost hope that Mr Levy will base his rulings on impartial application of the applicable law and still tries to "explain it" to him.

If I were her Counsel I would already have lost all hope and had resignated that this particular judge could really act neutral as a judge, and not like -as I have the impression so far from his prior rulings- as an "undercover agent" for Recording Industry Plaintiffs.

Lets hope Mr. Levy "gets it" what his role as a judge is supposed to be after all and thinks his rulings over again!

Alter_Fritz said...

Oh Ray, thanks for teaching me a new word / a new proverb since I did not know what "the brevity" was:

"We apologize if the brevity of our previous papers did not make it clear that the information is sought for purposes of impeachment."

Now I do:-) and will try to remember.

Anonymous said...

The very clear letter by RB is a letter that no defense council should have needed to write. I can only presume that no lawyer could reasonably expect that discovery required for ordinary and routine impeachment purposes would be denied, and denied in part because the RIAA's gross misrepresentations have been presumed to be true and then some.

I'd like to be a bit more indignant but such comments, I should think, may best be reserved for a less delicate time in the on going case.

Anonymous said...

If a police officer claimed you were driving 95mph in a 25mph zone, you'd be entitled to know how he knew your speed. It could be a radar or laser speed detector, he could have been following you in a chase car, he could have just observed you drive by and estimated the speed, he could have heard from a resident that you were driving extremely fast. Obviously, each of these methods presents different arguments in the defense of your speeding ticket (e.g. the laser radar was miscalibrated v.s. old man Jenkins is always thinking anything that drives by is 95mph).

I don't understand why a Judge would attempt to preclude such valuable information for ones defense. Obviously, Ray and Marie do not want to "take their word for it" that MS observed her distributing copyrighted works. It's her right to challenge this assertion, by requesting that they "back it up."


Alter_Fritz said...

"It's her right to challenge this assertion, by requesting that they "back it up.""

RIAA to MediaSentry: we ... [mimetype mp3 directlink]

You had something like that in mind, Q? ;-)


Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

I know some well-known parts of criminal trials, such as "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", only apply to criminal trials. Does the right to confront your accuser apply to civil trials? If so, wouldn't denying this evidence be in clear violation of that right?

Alter_Fritz said...

ray, something seems to be wrong with the first link now
While its still the same name to your letter that tought me a new word "Brevity" the document that opens now is something from january last year!
Case 1:05-cv-01095-DGT-RML Document 127 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 1 of 2

Maybe P&F messed up their database?

raybeckerman said...

Thanks, alter_fritz,

I fixed the link.

Can't for the life of me figure out how that happened.

Best regards