Tuesday, March 17, 2009

RIAA opposes pro se litigant's motion to amend answer and counterclaims in Georgia case, SONY BMG Music v. Simms

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Simms, an Atlanta, Georgia, case being defended by a pro se litigant, the RIAA has filed papers opposing the defendant's motion for leave to amend her answer.

Plaintiffs' opposition

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


Eric said...

This is just mean. This is a pro-se defendant and rules lawyering will probably not win them any points with the court who must give the pro-se litigant much more leeway in following the letter of the rules.

raybeckerman said...

"just mean", Eric?

You must be new here.

That's what these RIAA dogs are... "just mean".

Anonymous said...

After seeing things like this happen to ordinary people that are defending themselves pro se, I really wish that this judge would just deny these RIAA [expletive deleted] jerks their motion.

How low can these losers go in order to win a case over at most $25 - $30 dollars in damages?

The more this goes on, the more obvious it is that the RIAA and its' affiliates (:%s/f/s, for you vim geeks out there) are only doing this to 1) lock down their monopoly and 2) prevent technological innovation.

No matter what punishment these guys get in the end for this crap, it'll probably be better than they deserve.

Eric said...

I'm not new, just in constant amazement at the new levels of low they reach with each new filing.

raybeckerman said...

Eric I was kidding; I know you're not new here. That was just a Slashdot meme I've picked up: "you must be new here".

Any time someone points out yet another lie the RIAA is telling, or yet another act of meanness by their worms - er lawyers - it might be appropriate to kiddingly say "you must be new here".

But I guess it's a conversation stopper, rather than a conversation enhancer, so I'll try not to do that again.


Eric said...

Sorry... sometime the humor in the whole situation does not bridge that virtual gap. :-)

Another Kevin said...

I'd not lay long odds against the motion being granted. Lots of judges think that all pro se litigants are in court frivolously, no matter which side of the room they're sitting on.

Anonymous said...

Yet another example of what Judge Gertner (if I remember correctly) said about the RIAA lawyers "forgetting" about a lot of these people appearing pro se.

For crying out loud, this lady is appearing without the benefit of an attorney. So what if this lady forgot some procedural rule/nicety? It's not as if she knows all the ins and outs of working in federal court. Just because your corporate masters are complete fools and idiots doesn't mean that you have to steam roll ordinary folks.

raybeckerman said...

I wish some judge would really let them have it one of these days, with both barrels.