To: i-node who wrote (6002 ) 1/23/2007 12:30:51 PM From: pcstel Respond to That was a quote from Judge Batts. II Discussion A.Legal Standards Friedl v. Ciry of New York, 120 F. 3d 79, 83 (2d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); Bolt Elec., Inc. v. City of New Youk, 53 F.3d 465, 469 (2d Cir. 1995). A court should grant dismissal only if, after considering plaintiff's allegations in the most generous light, "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Walker v Cty of New York, 974 F. 2d 293, 298 (2d Cir. 1992).. Read the judge's opinion. She made it clear it was not a ruling on the merit of the RIAA's case, and only on whether there is a sufficient case to warrant a trial. untenable XM's assertion that Section 1008 of the AHRA offers a distributor of a DARD (Digital Audio Recording Device) "absolute immunity" from copyright litigation. (Def. Mem. Law at 2.) Actaully, what the Plaintiffs make clear in their Complaint is the XM is acting without authorization as a commerical content delivery provider to those devices - not that XM is infringing on their copyrights by distributing a DARD. Actaully, what the Plaintiffs make clear in their Complaint is that XM is acting without authorization as a commerical content delivery provider to those devices - not that XM is infringing on their copyrights by distributing a DARD. "UNTENABLE" , and stated that the RIAA MAKE CLEAR in their complaint is that XM is acting without authorization as a commercial content delivery provider.
