Thursday, July 24, 2008

Memoranda of law in Arista v. Limewire

Plaintiffs finally did get around to filing a memorandum of law, four (4) days after the filing deadline, in Arista v. LimeWire.

Here are the copies of the memoranda of law I have been able to find:

Defendants' first memorandum of law
Defendants' second memorandum of law
Plaintiffs' memorandum of law

Commentary & discussion:

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


Unknown said...

I love the RIAA. If I miss a deadline by four days, I start checking that my resume is up to date.

Anonymous said...

Blaming LimeWire for the actions of their users would be like suing Microsoft because someone typed up a bank robbery note – or perhaps more appropriately typed up copyrighted lyrics – using Microsoft Word. Microsoft is clearly not libel for the actions of their users of their program, a program which has substantial non-infringing uses, and as much as the recording industry may wish otherwise, neither is LimeWire.

If LimeWire were guilty, what comes next? Microsoft whose Windows operating system actually hosts the LimeWire program and actually controls the writing to the hard drive of the infringing files? Without Windows enabling it, no LimeWire. Dell and HP who built the computers that run the Windows operating system which hosts the LimeWire program? Bose who built the speakers which are plugged into the computer built by Dell/HP running Microsoft Windows which hosts the LimeWire program and are used to listen to the infringing content? Sony/Phillips who built the CD drives used for the original ripping of the CD's that feed the LimeWire program which...and which are used by the downloader to burn the infringing files to CD? Verbatim/Sony who produce the blank CD-R media which is put in the CD drives to burn the infringing files downloaded...

The problem is obvious here. There is no law to address this issue as the recording industry would like and the recording industry is trying to create their own law to fill in the gaps. This is perhaps because the actions that the recording industry is complaining about are distributed across many people, and the individual pieces may not be actionable in any reasonable manner.

And because it's too much trouble to go after millions of filesharers, a number of whom would vote in better Congressional representatives if annoyed by this campaign too much, that leaves the recording industry trying to choke off the tool makers in the misguided belief that they can make writing of P2P programs too hazardous for future programmers to even attempt. Unfortunately for them, this is not how a proper democracy operates, nor do computer programming rebels respond well to fear in this manner.

So why is the second Defendant's Memorandum of Law redacted? The table of contents looks fascinating, and hardly subject needing to be hidden from the public.

The Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law is truly not worthy of response. It is 46 pages of whining, devoid of any facts to back it up, that infringement is happening on a massive scale and that LimeWire is completely guilty for every bit of it. They say that logically this had to have happened so we don't really have to have those pesky, hard to discover, facts to actually back us up in this. Just take our word, Judge, that all this has gone down exactly as we describe it and don't make us actually have to go to trial.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Alter_Fritz said...

what I find noteworthy and love, is how defendants are putting in their stuff that they are of sound mind.

So far I have not once seen such claim in any of those "under penalty of perjury"-thingies by the well known record companies or their lawyers.

Is it reasonable for me to conclude therefore that they are afraid to commit perjury when they would claim such a thing?

Being of sound mind i mean...

Anonymous said...

Is there anything to this case other than the two questions of whether Limewire has significant noninfringing uses and whether it explicitly encourages copyright infringement? -dp

DreadWingKnight said...

Regardless, with Arista's memo being late, I'd say move to exclude it for failure to file in a timely manner.

If they want the rules enforced on their opponents, they NEED to EXPECT the rules enforced on them.