Friday, February 27, 2009

RIAA submits further papers resisting Matthew Oppenheim deposition

Plaintiffs have requested permission to file surreply papers, further objecting to the deposition of Matthew Oppenheim, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

The papers dispute that Oppenheim should be deposed as the representative of a corporate party, saying that he is only an attorney, even though he has presented himself to various Judges as "the principal" of the record companies, "the only person with settlement authority", "the client", and "the client representative".

Motion for permission to file surreply memo
Proposed surreply memo

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


Jadeic said...

Seems the gutless wonder is still duckin' and divin'


raybeckerman said...

As with all bullies, who are invariably cowards.

Anonymous said...

minor nit: I think you got the name of the case wrong in your post ("SONY BMG Music v. Entertainment").

Anonymous said...

The 'RIMPAA's have really learn how to "shuck and Jive".


raybeckerman said...

Thanks very much for bringing it to my attention!

derivative said...

To me, the most interesting thing about this memo was not what it claimed (which was all to be expected), but that the tone, while still being "outraged", was significantly less strident than the original (with its demand for sanctions).

Does this indicate that the plaintiffs were blindsided by the even-tempered and rational sounding reply from the defendants?

Does this indicate that the plaintiffs, through belated research or some other indication, decided that their previous strategy wouldn't sit well with the judge?

Or are they just trying to keep us guessing?

To me, it seems like a significant back-pedal from "they are abusing the system so badly they need to be seriously punished" to "they are absolutely, unequivocally wrong, and here's why."

Not that the latter statement has any more merit in this instance, but it feels much more like a regular legal document than the original. Is somebody back on their meds?