Friday, June 05, 2009

RIAA moves to exclude defendant's expert witnesses in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the following new papers have been filed:

-a motion by the plaintiffs to exclude defendant's expert witnesses;
-defendant's reply memorandum in support of a fair use defense; and
-a motion by plaintiff to compel production of additional materials related to a blog posting allegedly by defendant's legal team.

Plaintiffs' motion to exclude defendant's experts
Defendant's reply memorandum in support of fair use defense
Plaintiffs' motion to compel supplemental production

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...

Ok, I'll ask the stupid question...

WTF does an independent action of a member of the defendants counsel team have to do with this case? It is not relevant to the proceedings and needs to be taken up separately or it becomes a huge conflict of interest.

raybeckerman said...

I think the motion was made strictly for the purpose of making defendant's legal team look like jerks.

raybeckerman said...

I.e., the motion was just an excuse for showing that to the judge.

Alter_Fritz said...

Well, while I'm not agreeing with you here 100% what the purpose might have been, can Team Tenenbaum non the less initiate actions against RIAA Eve since she willfully lies when she claims that Nesson/Defendant did this songs snafu?
It is obvious from the exhibits(*) to that filing that it was Ray Bilderbeck who uploaded some password protected songs to megaupload. NOT Joel nor Nesson!
So Eve Goldstein Burton is a lier!


h/t to Mr. B.S. for the exhibit postings :-)

Alter_Fritz said...

following comment I wanted to place on Mr. B.S. blog posting regarding those motions. But his blogger template is so fu[messed] up, using it with a more secure browser setting without active scripting and all this insecure stuff -that allegedly only record label executives, their lawyers and supportive bloggers to their "education campaign via courts" uses- makes it virtually impossible to have a preview or send a comment there.
Excuse me Ray for (ab)using your much clearer blogger template that is thankfully usable without all those insecurities but this way I can be sure Mr. B.S. will get the question I directed at him. (P.S. Just for the record, Mr. Cloherty seems just as I thought NOT to be a nice man; no copies regarding the Rhode Island computer thingy yet in my inbox.)

Ben wrote: "And [plaintiffs] complain that the defense has not made Pouwelse and Barlow available for deposition."

It's not that Nesson is hiding those guys in his basement blindfolded and mouth gaged (I do hope he is not!) ;-) And last I heard the netherlands have telefones and internet and video conferencing systems and all those fancy stuff too (In fact IIRC it was a dutch company that was one of the first that offered "internet" on a broad scale to the masses [xs4all]) So why can't plaintiffs just use a videoconferencing system for expert deposition? And as serious question Mr. Sheffner, can you please explain what are the requirements regarding "making available" of experts.? (If the rules of law are as broad as what the plaintiffs wish that making available copyrighted soundrecordings are, then offering the dutch guy via video conferencing should be good enough I guess)