RIAA's Attack On NewYorkCountryLawyer Fails

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "p2pnet.net reports that the RIAA has egg on its face. When the Electronic Frontier Foundation requested permission to file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Boston University students challenging the RIAA's ex parte discovery order, the RIAA lawyers attacked the blog 'Recording Industry vs. The People' for its criticism of the RIAA as seeking to 'abuse the American judicial system, distort copyright law, and frighten ordinary working people and their children' and then falsely claimed that the blog's author is an EFF attorney — this despite the fact that they know that the blog's author (known on Slashdot as NewYorkCountryLawyer) is a partner in a New York law firm and not an EFF attorney. Judge Gertner apparently wasn't impressed, and granted the EFF's motion, rejecting the RIAA's objections, since she felt amici curiae might 'shed light' on the 'copyright law' and 'computer technology' issues before her."

Comments

For the non lawyers

[ZanySpyDude]

this helped me out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_Curiae_Brief

Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it bad that I immediately knew it is actually Omicron Persei 8?

Definition of Amicus Curiae

[sorak]

From Wikipedia

Amicus curiae (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief - testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties - or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.

In case anyone else was wondering what amicus curiae meant.

been both places

[nomadic]

A lawyer will have many dates while a geek or nerd will have none.

As an ex-sysadmin turned lawyer I can assure you, to my great chagrin, that is not true.

Re:Euphemisms

[JeepFanatic]

So ... what part of Pittsburgh are you from?

Re:Geez Louise,-HEY, IN SCOTLAND...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Maybe claim that if you share ear buds with your friend, that you're "stealing" the music? That you should be prosecuted for theft?

Don't laugh. In Scotland just a few months ago, a car repair facility was fined for public performance without a license because the mechanics doing the repairs were playing their radios loud enough for customers in the waiting area to hear. Remember that radios are licensed in Britain, and that they can be really stupid at times. Especially since the customers could have listened to exactly the same station on their own radios without a problem.

Bravo!

[beadfulthings]

New York Country Lawyer, you are an asset to Slashdot. I hope you continue to live long and prosper; you've certainly educated me, and I suspect the same is true for a lot of regular Slashdot readers.

Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer

[mweather]

It's Omicron Persei 8, not 7.

Re:Also want to know

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'd also like to know if RIAA might face any penalties for lying in their statements to the court. Does this count as perjury? It would certainly merit Rule 11 sanctions, and possible dismissal of their case.

Re:Is this really significant?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I am avowedly disgusted by the RIAA and hate them just as much as any card-carrying slashdotter, but I have to wonder if this is really a significant defeat. You're absolutely right that it's not unusual for a judge to grant a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief.

What is unusual -- in fact in 34 1/2 years of experience in litigation I don't think I've ever seen it happen -- is for some lawyer to be moronic enough to oppose. The RIAA lawyers are the only lawyers I have ever seen do such a thing. They've done it at least twice now, and lost both times.

And what is also unusual is for a member of the Bar to deliberately lie to a federal judge, because the consequences which can flow from that to the lawyer's career are huge. These lawyers deliberately lied to the Judge when they represented that I am an Electronic Frontier Foundation. They also lied to the Judge when they implied that the quote they'd extracted was from February 5, 2008, when in fact it was from months earlier.

Re:Is this really significant?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They did NOT retrieve it from the site on February 5, 2008. That quote had been removed months earlier, and appeared nowhere on the site on February 5, 2008.

Re:Is this really significant?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The papers are controlled by Richard Gabriel of Holme Roberts & Owen in Denver, CO.

Re:More Like NewYorkCountryChampion

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm used to being forced to concede points to people who make very good points, and reconsider my position because of them. Good lawyers (as opposed to the RIAA's lawyers) do that all the time.

The RIAA's lawyers never concede anything unless the judge calls them on it. (See, e.g. Transcript of January 26, 2007, oral argument in Elektra v. Barker.). Even then, the next time they're in court with a different judge, they'll say the same stupid thing anyway, hoping the second judge won't find out about the first one.