tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post5806863704108672115..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Why the record labels should WANT the Tenenbaum hearing webcastBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-70839649109961494442009-01-23T10:40:00.000-08:002009-01-23T10:40:00.000-08:00While the RIAA might want more people to read the ...While the RIAA might want more people to read the UMG vs Lindor motion to dismiss the only people likely to do so are ones who are familiar enough with the case to recognize the glaring flaws in it and to read the opposing counsels response to it.<BR/><BR/>7 of the 9 points on the motion are a mixture of falsehoods known to the plaintiffs lawyer, conjecture entire unsupported by any evidence, and holding the defendant responsible for the actions of unrelated 3rd parties. Of the other two, she could have aided in the serving of Junior Lindor however she had no legal responsibility to do so and asserts that the 10 year old photo is the most recent she had. And the final issue about changing her testimony is claimed to be a matter of correcting misremembered details from many years earlier, the claim it is false is disingenious because they are picking and choosing which peoples testimony to believe based on what serves their case and is ultimately an issue for the jury to determine which they find most compelling.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07794700219316543166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-88736935397135920162009-01-21T15:12:00.000-08:002009-01-21T15:12:00.000-08:00Hmm--from what I read of the Lindor document you l...Hmm--from what I read of the Lindor document you link to, the defendant was being sued for illegal uploading (distribution), not copying. Also, the plaintiff kept using the phrase "Internet account," which sounds kind of wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com