Response in Replies to RIAA in Motown v. Does
Ray Beckerman shares the reply memorandum in Motown v. Does. The defendant calls RIAA's opposition filing "smoke and mirrors", including the following:
-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".
Place your comment