Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:32:31+00:00

Document:
In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has made a motion to prevent the defendant's lawyers from seeing plaintiffs' contracts with MediaSentry.
In the Buckles declaration they admitted that the "instructions and parameters" for MediaSentry's "on-line investigations" were developed by the RIAA's lawyers. (See Buckley Declaration, paragraph 6, page 2).
goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers. (Counterclaim, paragraph 26, page 18).
This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models.(Counterclaim, paragraph 28, page 18).
Lime Wire has demanded a trial by jury.
In UMG v. Lindor, the defendant Marie Lindor has made a motion to preclude the RIAA from introducing into the case songs as to which it has failed to produce the song files. Ms. Lindor's lawyers submitted to the Court the RIAA's interrogatory responses where the record companies had stated under oath that their case was based upon (a) Media Sentry's detection of song files being 'distributed' and (b) Media Sentry's allegedly making "perfect digital copies" of those files. Ms. Lindor's attorneys argued that the RIAA cannot prove that it made perfect digital copies of the songs if it doesn't have the song files.
others, in other countries, who are fighting the same fight you are.
zsolt@dallosugyvediiroda.t-online.hu). I would like to share our experiences with you in order to avoid reinventing the wheel (by either of us).
our experience may be useful to you and vice versa.
enormous damage to humanity's cultural heritage.
money by means other than seeking the favors of recording monopolies.
basis of folk-music, was rendered unprofitable and thus almost extinct.
Universal Music is now offering free downloads. At this point, the claimed damage per shared song should be closer to $0, than to the RIAA's standard $750 (there is a different figure in Hungary, but that's not relevant in your case).
"New York courts may keep lawyers from blogging"
The RIAA has changed its local counsel in the New York City area.
The new firm is Robinson & Cole, LLP.
The outgoing firm is Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.
Just to let you know I've really been "Slashdotted"... a tough interview, and merciless pounding afterwards. But it was an honor to be selected, and going through it has been a lot of fun, kind of like a Friars Club Roast except without the "love" part.
In "opposition" to Marie Lindor's motion to compel and for discovery sanctions in UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA submitted to the Magistrate a section of the deposition transcript in which UMG's witness, an in-house lawyer at UMG, admitted that the only people she had contacted at UMG in trying to find out about p2p file sharing between UMG and radio stations were 2 lawyers and an officer involved in procurement (Transcript, p. 42, ll. 4-15), and that she never contacted anyone in the radio promotion departments (Transcript, p. 32, ll. 20-23). She further testified that the only question she was purporting to ask was whether p2p file sharing had been used by "the company" or "Universal"(Transcript, p. 32 li. 24-p. 33 li. 7)(Transcript, p. 34 ll. 13-17), as opposed to the question Ms. Lindor's lawyers had asked -- and the Magistrate had ordered them to answer -- whether p2p had been used by the company's employees to send song files to radio stations.
The RIAA's case against a Georgia man, Atlantic Recording v. Francisco Zuleta, in Atlanta, has been discontinued.
Mr. Zuleta had filed a counterclaim against the record companies for abusive litigation,. He also submitted a declaration in which he testified that he had never downloaded any music.
Mr. Zuleta testified in his declaration that he had a roommate with a computer and that he had an open wireless router. There had been downloads to a router. The name on the Kazaa! account was the roommate's first name.
The RIAA withdrew its claim, and Mr. Zuleta withdrew his counterclaim. Both dismissals were "without prejudice".
their opposition to Defendant's motion.
1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under.
2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded] He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CD's owned by Mr. Wilke.
3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.
The RIAA plaintiffs have taken the position that they only need to testify about whether the companies used p2p file sharing, arguing that the Magistrate limited Ms. Lindor's interrogatories by removing the term "employees".
In Arista v. Greubel, pending in Fort Worth, Texas, the judge has denied Mr. Greubel's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The judge followed Elektra v. Santangelo in White Plains, NY, Interscope v. Duty in Arizona, two other Texas cases, Warner v. Payne, and Fonovisa v. Alvarez, and a Brooklyn case, Maverick v. Goldshteyn.
This is the sixth of seven fully briefed dismissal motions of which the author is aware, and the sixth that has been denied. All of the decisions are from the lower courts. All were non-appealable, so no appeals have been filed. The only remaining dismissal motion of which the author is aware is Elektra v. Barker, pending in Manhattan before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
The parties have entered into a confidentiality stipulation covering the "chain of title" copyright documents produced by the RIAA plaintiffs in UMG v. Lindor.
The RIAA filed an "errata" in Warner v. Stubbs, correcting its prior motion to dismiss its own case.
In its initial motion it had said it was moving "without prejudice" in several places, but in its final "ad damnum" clause asked the judge to dismiss "with prejudice".
"Without prejudice" means they could sue again at a later time for the same thing.
"With prejudice" means they could not sue again for the same thing, and that the case is totally closed.
p2pnet.net News:- For years p2pnet has been criticizing spurious entertainment and software cartel pseudo-educational programs which attempt not merely to implant false standards, but also outright lies, into the heads of children around the world.
Now a number of public interest organizations have in a joint statement vigorously attacked Campus Downloading, a Big Four Oranized Music video travesty fronted by EDUCAUSE vp Mark Luker and the Big Four's RIAA.
An appallingly blatant example of pure corporate music industry mis- and disinformation "baloney," it purports to 'instruct' students about copyright law.
A word to college students who are on the receiving end of this DVD: never take legal advice from anyone except your lawyer. The RIAA is not your lawyer.
In Capitol v. Foster, where Ms. Foster is seeking approximately $50,000 in attorneys fees against the RIAA, her attorney has asked the Court to (a) take judicial notice of another Oklahoma case, the more recent Tallie Stubbs case (another case which the RIAA dropped because it had no evidence against the defendant), and (b) to grant the motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief submitted by the EFF, the ACLU, Public Citizen, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.