Friday, May 22, 2009

Pro se defendant files amended answer in Georgia case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Simms

In a pro se Georgia case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Simms, the defendant has filed an amended answer.

Order granting defendant's motion for leave to file amended answer
Amended answer

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


Anonymous said...

RIAA: "Blah, blah, blah, give us someone else to go after or we will go after you."

Same old lies, same old bullying, same old . . .

IIRC, one thing I do wonder is if her computer was not in her possession since 2007 and she has either disposed of it or has no idea where it is, how in the world do they expect to "forensically" examine the hard drive?

I wish Ms. Simms the best of luck.

On a side note, it looks as though she is doing this pro se and is using a lot of the info found on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Exhibit A, what a piece of work. Where's the rest of it, though?

Anonymous said...

It's interesting how the RIAA asks Defendant to do investigating work for them.

"We don't know who did it, but since it might be you, we'll go after you and see what happens. Unless you give us a better target."


qc.carlos said...

Thanks for your comment!

raybeckerman said...

Folks, by way of explanation, the comment from Carlos Quiroz is in reference to my comment on his outstanding blog "Peruanista", which details the plight of the indigenous people of the Amazon rain forest in Peru to protect and defend, for posterity, the treasures of the rain forest and of their imperilled culture.

It was through a "tweet" from Carlos Thursday night that I learned that a protest would be held yesterday in my town, NYC.

I was privileged to attend and show my support for these fine people, whose struggle is all of our struggle.

Here is Carlos's report on the protest, with photographs:

Anonymous said...

Ray -

If I read Ms. Simms' answer correctly, it looks like she's
a) contesting RIAA's identification of her as the infringer,
b) because of her behavior,
c) because they did not observe any of the alleged acts, and/or
d) because of the history of the computer in question.

Does that mean plaintiffs will have to bring hard evidence, instead of just their 'information and belief'?

-Quiet Lurker

Anonymous said...

Quiet Lurker:

They'll hafta bring real evidence if the judge makes them.


Anonymous said...

Defendant has never used the screen name "luckylinz"...That casual apparent association between a screen name and a Defendant's name is likely why this case is being pursued, and perhaps why it was picked out to be investigated in the first place. The only way to try and link a person to a P2P account would be to prove that this is their screen name. Otherwise there is no way, even if the actual computer is found, to say who might have been using it.

Perhaps "Hillary_Rosen" should become the new screen name of choice for all P2P users.

The computer Defendant used in college became completely in-operational in late 2007, prior to the filing of the Complaint.So much for continuous and ongoing infringement claims. Also, likely so much for ever being able to ever prove that this now in-operational computer was actually ever the one "detected" by MediaSentry's illegal investigation.

Defendant has not maintained ownership of an internet access account with the internet service provider since 2007.See above.

I understand you are claiming that your are not responsible for the infringement...I'm sure you understand that most people claim they are not responsible...Plaintiffs only intend to pursue claims against those who have liability...invite you to provide any information...not limited to "Linzo's" last name and all contact information you have for him as well as the basis for your belief that he is responsible...You are now our unpaid investigator -- or else -- and a liar!
{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

The Common Man notes that posted messages to this blog are now being reformatted from what was entered and previewed. In particular, hard line breaks after html tags are being removed to the determent of easy readability. While he is reasonably certain that Ray isn't doing this, it's always disappointing to this man when the Preview feature of a post does not accurately represent what the final posting will appear as.

{The Common Man Speaking}

raybeckerman said...

Yeah I've noticed that when I posted comments the first hard return was obliterated, even though it showed up fine in the preview.

Have no idea what that's about.

Alter_Fritz said...

I noted that too a while back (I think it was on the weiner Fax number quote posting where i really noticed it that my "I" was directly behind the last number, that's why I tried to remember to put a <br> behind formatting tags in the subsequent comments.
It seems to me when you use formatting tags (i or b for example), then the automatic linebreak does not work after the closing formatting tag.

Anonymous said...

Whether returns count as line breaks is a toggle in Blogger's option menu. If that's the issue you're talking about here, itt's something Ray can change, probably, if he digs around a bunch.


raybeckerman said...

No, it's happening non-uniformly; it's clearly a glitch.