Monday, August 04, 2008

RIAA filed opposition papers in Elektra v. Doe

Subsequent to the Court's order in Elektra v. Doe, a Raleigh, North Carolina, "John Doe" case, indicating that the Court was going to take a "fresh look" at the RIAA tactics, the RIAA filed opposition papers defending its tactics.

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion

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


Lost in Thought said...

MediaSentry has neither been contacted by the Private Protective Services Board (“PPSB”) nor been charged with operating without a license by the Attorney General under the PPSA.

So getting a notice of a greivance hearing doesn't count as being 'contacted?' Notice of the hearing was sent to them on June 30th and the response was filed July 9th. Hmmmmmmm..... But I'm sure that they tripped over themselves to correct the official record, though, the RIAA lawyers being the beacons of integrity that they are...

Alter_Fritz said...

Someone of the RIAA lawyers go out and file a JonDoe ex parte proceding to find out who this "cyberspace" guy is!

"Moreover, Mr. Linares’ statements are based on personal knowledge, and MediaSentry’s
observation and downloading of sound recordings from cyberspace, through a P2P network
accessible to the general public, is not an activity regulated by the North Carolina statutes."

Why again are they suing an unknown Doe if they claim to know from which guy (this time not "terreastar" but "cyberspace") they downloaded the songs?

And is it really necessary that me -the non lawyer, non american boyfriend of a pirategirl- must explain this Lacey M. Moore guy/gal (?) that in order to infringe the distribution right codified in US copyrightlaw there must have taken place a transfer of ownership by sale rental or lease of a phonorecord?
And that nothing what he/she accuse the Doe of having done satisfies this prerequsite of your copyrightlaws?!

Question: Can Lacey be slapped with Rule 11 for those obvious lies by him/her in the papers?

Jadeic said...

At first glance this looks like the 'same old, same old' twaddle we have come to expect.

The inclusion of reference to 'TNT Road Co. v. Sterling Truck Corp' is an interesting aside though. The RIAA seem to be arguing this as a clear precedent that the expert testimony can be accepted by the court even when the expert acted as an investigator and did so without the licence required by the state. In other words, even if it is found that MS perhaps should have been registered as an investigator (insert abject apologies), the expert evidence can still stand.

The expert in question in 'TNT Road Co. v. Sterling Truck Corp' is one Mr Adams. What the RIAA fail to draw attention to is that the reason his testimony was allowed to stand is that his credentials as an investigator (licensed or not) were made fully available to the court and it was clearly demonstrated that his methodology was thorough and conformed fully with the appropriate national standard.[TNT Road Co. v. Sterling Truck Corp - District of Maine 1:03-cv-00037-MJK Docket 89]

Contrast this with the RIAA ploy that would have us accept as expert testimony the hearsay of someone not directly involved in the investigation which itself is based on methodologies that accept not peer review and which are in effect an unexplained, sealed black box.

Another example of wanting to have the cake and eat it.


Anonymous said...

How can litigation based upon an investigation that took place month before, by an investigator posing as a common "Joe" on the internet, and based upon evidence that has been fondled, and perhaps manipulated and spoiled many times over, during the process, (who as a third party investigator, has many times previously submitted court documents claiming the invasions of perhaps millions of computer hard drives to gather evidence to be used in a court of law), while operating under the supervision of a paid trade group employee who (BTW is unlicensed to practice law in the questioned state), for the sole purpose of sustaining a lawsuit based upon a voodoo interpretation of the law, not ...(4) subjects a person to undue burden. ?

Anonymous said...