Tuesday, April 21, 2009

In case against SUNY Albany students, RIAA opposes extension of briefing schedule during Court's stay

In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, a case targeting students at the State University of New York's Albany campus, the RIAA has filed papers opposing the defendant's request for an extension of the briefing schedule during the period of the Court's stay. Without such an extension, the defendant-appellant's attorney would have to file the appellant's brief by May 6th.

Opposition to motion for extension of briefing schedule

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


Alter_Fritz said...

I don't understand Mr. Reynolds argument.

Why should defendants lawyer prepare stuff up to a certain date, when there is no indication that the court will even have a need for them when the issue might become moot?

This would only cost defendant extra money which might be totally unnecessary.

And that Mr. Reynolds still lies like hell in those statements need no longer be repeated. I guess he will get the law for his lies about who and when that body detecting individuals they claim ARE in fact the defendants in their cases.

Plaintiffs lawyers have more then enough times now demonstrated that their claims about that events/persons are plainly false in prior cases, yet he repeats those lies unhindered!

raybeckerman said...


You've answered your own question:

"This would only cost defendant extra money which might be totally unnecessary."Hasn't that been the cardinal rule of plaintiffs' lawyers in every case, at every juncture?

Every decision they make makes sense only if seen in that light.

Their tactical moves have been about 2 things: (a) costing the defendants money; and (b) running up their own legal fees.