Friday, January 09, 2009

RIAA serves summons and complaint on December 26th, 8 days after it said it wasn't bringing any new lawsuits

In a Massachusetts case, UMG Recordings v. Briggs, the RIAA served a summons and complaint on the defendant on December 26, 2008, some 8 days after its announcement that it was ending its litigation campaign.

Declaration of Service

Commentary & discussion:


Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player


StephenH said...

Ray, the link to the PDF is not working.

Alter_Fritz said...

seems sitemeter is a bit slow at the moment
try the direct link (sorry Ray for undermining your advertisement sidebar this way)

raybeckerman said...

the link is working fine...

Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever looked into the number of women v. men that the RIAA attacks? I think that they specifically target women. It seems that every time a new case comes up, it is a lady who is being named. Perhaps when they farm the shared folders of computers, they gather more information than just "Music Files”… But then, no one will ever know will they??

Alter_Fritz said...

@ anon January 10, 2009 12:54:00 AM EST

Nah, conspiracy theories are to be put aside.

I don't think that the criminal(?) wrongdoings committing lawyers from the Holme Roberts & Owen LLP [hereafter "HRO"] law firm with approximately 240 attorneys in offices in Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs, London, Los Angeles, Munich, Salt Lake City and San Francisco that work for Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by a Canadian)[hereafter "Evil4"], are misogynistic per se.

Their clients, those "best-known and most well-respected record companies in the United States and the world" might have some misogynistic social disorder judging from the song titles that they sue people for alleged copyrightinfringement for, but that it seems to you that more woman are sued is simple because more soccer moms and grandmothers are typicly the persons who are on record at the Internet service provider as the person responsible for paying the bills.
And since Evil4 prefers to contract illegal investigators and then just taking those bill payers names as face value (they call it "on information and belief" and too many judges allowed that shoddy claim in the past) instead of doing real investigational work who is the alleged copyright infringing person, it is that HRO names allegedly more woman then man as defendants.

(Of course Alter_Fritz does not want to rule out that even some of the HRO lawyers are misogynistic and/or pedophilistic perverts!
Remember the incidents with underage Kyle Anderson where there were not only the alleged callings from impersonating grandmothers but where HRO even in courtpapers stated that the lawyer (Timothy Reynolds if I remember correctly) that was supposed to get in close contact with her "is good with children" since he according to HRO's court submissions allegedly had own one(s)!)

Another Kevin said...

The plaintiff is listed as UMG Recordings et al, not Recording Industry Institute of America. RIAA isn't suing this defendant. (In short, RIAA's protestation that it won't sue any more is absolutely true - and absolutely irrelevant, since it hasn't litigated in the past, either. It's the RIAA member companies whose names are on the paperwork.)

raybeckerman said...

Dear Another Kevin, the RIAA runs the lawsuits and puts the record companies in as the plaintiffs.