Judge rejects RIAA sanction demands
p2pnet news view | RIAA:- One of the longest running battles between the Big 4 corporate record labels and the people who keep them alive centres on Marie Lindor (right) .
She’s a New York health aid who literally didn’t know one end of the computer from the other until she was attacked by UMG Recordings, Warner Bros Records, Interscope Records, Motown Record Company, and Sony BMG, and accused of being a massive online distributor of copyrighted music.
Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman, the independent New York lawyer who’s representing her, once summed it up like this »»»
The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have. As such, they are guilty of misuse of their copyrights.
Now, “Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy has recommended that the RIAA’s motion for discovery sanctions against the defendant and her counsel in UMG Recordings v. Lindor be denied, and that the RIAA’s motion for the action to be voluntarily dismissed ‘without prejudice’ be granted,” Beckerman blogs.
“We’re gratified that the plaintiffs’ meritless motion for so called discovery sanctions has been denied,” he told p2pnet, going on »»»
As we pointed out in detail in our November 7 papers, the RIAA’s request for sanctions was based on deliberately false misstatements of fact. While we would have preferred for the judge to have used stronger language than merely saying the RIAA’s motion was “largely overstated”, the result is the same.
We’re disappointed that the judge recommended that the RIAA’s dismissal of its own case be “without prejudice”, as Ms. Lindor has suffered enough.
“This case was frivolous in its inception, should never have been brought, and should never have been pursued,” he says, adding:
“Certainly it should not be brought again.”
Stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
until she was attacked – RIAA victim tells MediaSentry, put up or shut up, March 3, 2008
blogs – Magistrate denies RIAA motion for discovery sanctions in UMG v Lindor, October 9, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I’m new here from Google. I keep reading about the RIAA. IT IS A TRADE GROUP NOT THE DEVIL AND THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR LABELS!
Thank you.
October 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
^^ “This comes up every now and then, as it did in the spring of 2008″ I posted in January – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18247
# Arista is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony BMG
# Atlantic is owned by the Warner Music Group
# BMG is the German half of the Sony BMG partnership
# Capitol is owned by EMI
# Elektra is owned by the Warner Music Group
# Interscope is owned by Vivendi’s Universal Music Group
# Lava is owned by owned by Warner Music Group
# Loud is owned by UMG
# Priority Records is owned by EMI
# Maverick is owned by the Warner Music Group
# Motown Priority is owned by Vivendi’s Universal Music Group
# SONY is the Japanese half of the Sony BMG partnership
# UMG is Vivendi’s Universal Music Group
# Virgin Music is owned by EMI
# Warner Music Group is Warner Music
etc etc
Cheers
October 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Fortunately there is people like Marie Lindor to resist these criminal corporate and law parasites!
Marie Lindor you are my Hero!
October 10th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“HERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR LABELS!”
You are wrong on this one. almost all the labels member of the RIAA, BREIN, BPI, IFPI. . . . and so on and so forth belong to the same 4 labels or corporate parasites. Almost all. Visit http://www.riaaradar.com/ for more info.
These are the one under boycott and eventually extermination.
Almost none of the indies labels are members.
October 10th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“# Interscope is owned by Vivendi’s Universal Music Group”
Jon,
I think you should spell it : Vivendique Univers-sale. That mean nasty and dirty in French which I believe is perfectly appropriate.
For the nastiness this is the corporation who instigated the extortion operation against the US citizen. This is also the corporation who has been ripping off artists for so many years, and also bough sex from young naive burgeoning artists for promotion.
For the dirtiness we just have to report to the crappy lyrics carried by the screamers. . . Heu! I mean the singers they carry, and also the crappy porn movies for pederasts they dare to distribute around and that they call French art.
October 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Without prejudice?
Does this mean that we can come back and retaliate against these corporate parasites at anytime?
Just asking.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Ray Beckerman says:
cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together,
My question is, “what of the settlements?” Directv made well over 50,000 such settlements and the RIAA has made just as many if not more. Most of these are confidential and contents cannot be made public. In time though it will come out just what people were forced to sign. For instance, what if Directv or the RIAA committed some sort of crime and the defendant was made to sign stating they would not report that crime? What if someone is currently under a settlement where the RIAA or Directv made a mistake but the defendant was made to pay anyway? Of course where a mistake had been made the original court complaint would have been untruthful as only it could being a mistake? While people have a certain time to appeal, what of those are not permitted appeal because to do so would breech the confidential agreement. What is at stake here is an individuals constitutional right where they were a victim to report a crime. In some cases the right to protect there own property. Ten years from now, innocent person’s are still bound to a settlement which may continue to deny rights and liberties. I have a web site which targets just one such issue where these suits have not only ignored the defendant but other courts as well.
http://theft-by-satellite-company.com/index.html