Friday, March 24, 2006

John Doe #48 Replies to RIAA in Motown v. Does 1-99

John Doe #48 has served his reply memorandum of law* in Motown v. Does, pointing out that the RIAA's opposition papers were "smoke and mirrors" since, among other things, they


-ignored controlling legal authorities;
-offered no evidence at all;
-made a fabricated contention that Does 1-99 acted together;
-did not dispute the facts contained in the affidavit of programmer Zi Mei;
-attempted to confuse the Court by mixing up "expedited" discovery with "ex parte" discovery;
-cited completely irrelevant authorities;
-frivolously argued that "ex parte" decisions, including the Court's own "ex parte" ruling in this case, should be treated as authoritative precedents;
-frivolously argued that treaties are the same as statutes, and that a treaty should take precedence over the statute which authorized it;
-frivolously argued that the Court was bound by a letter from an employee of the Copyright office;
-frivolously argued that merely having files in a shared files folder is in and of itself a copyright infringement; and
-ignored the RIAA's own testimony before the FTC that most people with file sharing software do not even know what files on their computer are subject to being "shared".


The reply memorandum completes the briefing of John Doe's motion to (a) vacate the ex parte discovery order, (b) quash the subpoena, and (c) sever and dismiss as to John Does 2-99, in Motown v. Does 1-99, Docket No. 05 CV 0112 (NRB), pending before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, in Manhattan.

Judge Buchwald has stayed her previously issued ex parte discovery order and subpoena pending the determination of John Doe #48's motion.

* Available online at Internet Law & Regulation


Keywords: copyright download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

8 comments:

CodeWarrior said...

Excellent!
~Code

raybeckerman said...

Thanks, Code.

raybeckerman said...

Dear kentl and virtualchoirboy:

Thank you for your support, it means a lot to us during these dark days.

Hopefully the judges will start bouncing these phony cases, and it will all have been worth it.

Best regards,

Ray

StephenH said...

I hope the court grants the motion to sever. I think they need to follow the protocol established by BMG Music v. Does 1-203, Interscope Records v. Does 1-25, and In Re: Cases Filed by Recording Companies

StephenH said...

To Ray Beckerman,

I comment the word Belock Levine & Hoffman are doing in regards to taking on RIAA John Doe Cases. I think the RIAA should end this madness and put in a compensation mechanism to really solve the artist compensation problem for P2P, instead of this long lawsuit campaign.

recordjackethistorian said...

Its good to see people fighting back against an insdustry that has steadfastly refused to listen to their customers or to face reality!

I have been reading some of the judgments and court proceedings on Groklaw.net for quite some time, and have been quite impressed that judges with little or no technical background can make some pretty good sound judgements when presented with good factual information. Sometimes their lack of knowledge is a good thing and it has pushed both sides into explaining themselves in terms that most lay people can understand. No one gets to blur the issues when they are forced to reduce things to the simplest of terms.

In this case, decoding all the RIAA babble about who's to blame for their own marketing failures is a good thing. When you're sales are down, you don't look for a scapegoat, you look at yourself to see what you can do to change things. The music industry has never been good at this, nor have they ever been good at listening to their customers.

StephenH said...

MarsRevenge,

This is what I have been saying along. IP Addresses don't identify people. Something as simple as a friend using ones computer, or a router on the connection can prove this wrong. This also exists if one is routed via a proxy server or VPN tunnel.

StephenH said...

I also commend your firm for taking on these "John Doe" cases. I think the only way for the RIAA to stop this madness is for some precidents to be set, that protect a user, and stop "gulity until proven innocent" tactics, and the evil "Settlement Support Center" tactics.