Friday, July 17, 2009

RIAA opposes motion for internet access due to defendant's not having disclosed specific URL's and programs

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the plaintiffs have opposed the motion for internet access due to defendant's having not disclosed the specific URL's and programs he wishes to demonstrate.

Plaintiffs' response to motion for internet access

[Ed. note. Personally I think the Judge should postpone the trial and give the parties a chance to do it right. If they're going to litigate interesting stuff like the various types of peer to peer file sharing behaviors, and which are or are not fair use, it should be decided on the merits, rather than on the basis of technicalities such as counsel's not having filed something on time. It's not as though the defendant's counsel is a day-in-day-out legal practitioner. I think the testimony of the ethnomusicologist and the internet demonstrations would be very helpful to the jury in understanding what it's all about. If they're both excluded on the basis of technical screwups, it would be a shame. The schedules Judge Gertner has set have been, in my personal opinion, overly ambitious. If I'm Judge Gertner, I step back, take a deep breath, and issue an order revising the schedule, allowing for the discovery, and setting the matter down for trial in the Fall. -R.B.]

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

1 comment:

Jadeic said...

Sage advice there Ray. Despite having to avert our eyes from some of the more idiosyncratic gestures made by both sides there could, if allowed, be some interesting stuff to come out at trial that may yet swing things in the defendant's favour. Fall seems a sensible rescheduling - we can wait.