RIAA caught in ‘legal bees’ nest’
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- “Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA has so many thorns in its side it’s starting to look like a porcupine,” p2pnet posted on Tuesday, going on:
“And one of the most painful must be professor Charles Nesson (right) of Harvard Law School. Harvard is the one senior US teaching institution the Big 4 have been unable (afraid?) to touch in their twisted campaign to reduce every American university to the status of marketing-unit-cum-copyright-cop, and every American student to servile consumer of corporate ‘product,’ and only corporate ‘product’.
“Nesson has moved from outspoken critic of the guilty to active defender of the innocent,” we added.
Now, notes Techdirt, “It looks like the RIAA failed in its efforts to tiptoe around the legal bees’ nest of Harvard Law.”
‘Crack team of CyberOne students’
Nesson has, “gone to bat for an RIAA defendant in Boston, entering a case in which he will be taking the RIAA on directly, squaring off against Timothy Reynolds, Eve Burton, and Laurie Rust, the same Denver, Colorado, lawyers trying to dismiss UMG Recordings v Lindor in Brooklyn,” said Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman.
“The Massachusetts case is SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, one of the hundreds of cases consolidated in Boston under the caption London-Sire v. Does 1-4.
“On Mr. Tenenbaum’s behalf, Prof. Nesson has filed an amended counterclaim, interposing counterclaims against the plaintiff record companies and against the RIAA itself, for both federal and state abuse of process.”
Not only but also Nesson, assisted by law students Shubham Mukherjee and Nnamdi Okike, demanded a protective order with respect to the RIAA’s request for a hard drive examination, and opposed the RIAA’s motion to dismiss counterclaims.
He and a, “crack team of CyberOne students is in the process of defending Joel Tenenbaum,” says Harvard’s CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion blog, going on »»»
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is in the process of bringing to bear upon the defendant, Joel Tenenbaum, the full might of its lobbying influence and litigating power. Joel Tenenbaum was a teenager at the time of the alleged copyright infringements, in every way representative of his born-digital generation.
The plaintiffs and the RIAA are seeking to punish him beyond any rational measure of the damage he allegedly caused.
They do this, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by Joel’s individual action, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using computers, and so frightening to parents and teachers of students using computers, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future.
The plaintiffs in the suit and the RIAA are abusing law and this court’s civil process. Because Joel Tenenbaum allegedly downloaded seven songs from a file-sharing network comprised of millions of his peers doing likewise, the plaintiffs have already imposed upon him process filling a docket sheet running back over years.
In fact, as Nesson says in an argument highlighted by Techdirt, the RIAA itself should be punished for its, “abuses of the law”.
‘The RIAA intimidates and steamrolls’
Say Nesson and his assistants in their defense of their counterclaim against the RIAA and the music companies that back it, “In essence, Plaintiffs are using the prosecution of Joel Tenenbaum to extort other accused infringers: the accused are told to either pay the settlement, or else be exposed to the protracted litigation and potentially astronomical damages that Joel now faces.”
They go on »»»
The intimidation tactics are working: of the 30,000 accusations the RIAA has leveled against individuals, only a single defendant has made her case in front of a judge and jury… (that sole defendant is now awaiting a new trial).
They’re referring to the Jammie Thomas farce in which judge Michael Davis, who presided, has now ruled that it be heard again.
Nesseon, et al, add »»»
The RIAA intimidates and steamrolls accused infringers into settling before they have their day in court and before the courts can weigh the merits of their defenses. The inherent dangers in allowing a single interest group, desperate in the face of technological change, led by a voracious, cohesive, extraordinarily well-funded and deeply experienced legal team doing battle with pro se defendants, armed with a statute written by them and lobbied and quietly passed through a compliant congress, to march defendants through the federal courts to make examples out of them should lead this Court to say “stop.”
Stay tuned, as ever.
p2pnet – Harvard’s Charles Nesson battles the RIAA, October 28, 2008
Techdirt – Big Guns Come Out In Effort To Show RIAA’s Lawsuits Are Unconstitutional, October 30, 2008
Recording Industry vs The People – Prof. Nesson of Harvard Law School takes on the RIAA in court in SONY v. Tenenbaum, October 28, 2008
Jammie Thomas farce – RIAA vs Jammie Thomas: new trial, September 24, 2008
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 31st, 2008 at 11:28 am
It’s nice to see an articulate representation of the truth about the RIAA and its clients. Thank god there are people like Mr. Nesson out there willing to protect the rights of the ordinary citizen.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:30 am
^^ Yes. It’s been a long time, a very long time, coming, but it’s worth saying again:
The RIAA intimidates and steamrolls accused infringers into settling before they have their day in court and before the courts can weigh the merits of their defenses. The inherent dangers in allowing a single interest group, desperate in the face of technological change, led by a voracious, cohesive, extraordinarily well-funded and deeply experienced legal team doing battle with pro se defendants, armed with a statute written by them and lobbied and quietly passed through a compliant congress, to march defendants through the federal courts to make examples out of them should lead this Court to say “stop.”
Cheers!
October 31st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It is amazing that in 5 years I did not buy even one CD or music from any RIAA members. I don’t even know what they are doing anymore and I don’t care. Similarly in 2 years I did not buy any DVD from any MPA member or put my feet in any movie theater.
This is since they started bother people with extortion, abusive search and seizures, arrassing in theater agaisnt cell phone, digital camera and going after web site such as the Pirate Bay.
If every one was doing like me all these parasites woul have been extinct by now.
We are getting there though. It is like a slow death just like you treat tuberculosis with Rifenpicine.
The scares to our societies will heal eventiully once the parasites are dead.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
My advice if they bother you is not to pay. Never pay even if a judge tell you you have to pay.
DON’T!
If you have no asset they can not do anything. If you have asset just BK chapter 7. Eventully justice will prevail and your record will be restored in both cases.
So don’t worry about it.
If you pay however say bye bye to your money since you are dealing with Inc companies and since they will go out of business soon. You will not be able to get your money back unless you go after the executives of these companies.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 am
Hurray to Harvard team
@ anon is correct! … never ever pay them!
When Rogers, Bell and others forwarded notices I immediately replied with “SCREW YOU” and Notice of Understanding and Intent, as email and not even notarized. Each included my fee of 300 to 1,000 per hour for wasting my time on such frivolous, illegal and unsubstantiated claims. This amounted to 100 times of what big 4 idiots claimed. I’m a really slow typer, it takes me a week to type one letter
In each case I didn’t receive any further notice or reply. I actually prodded them to do so and still no reply.
They have no “full proof”: specific IP, computer, file actually being on HD, whether or not it was specifically me or someone on my Wifi LAN or extended network, exact size of file, whether or not it was a spoofed file, part file / full file, traceroute and other related specific info. IP and file name is not good enough!
For all they could know is I was doing some testing of whether of not ISP is doing DPI or some other such scheme. How do they know if I wasn’t testing files or just integrity or network? How do they know I didn’t use files to send messages inside these files?
Major point: they didn’t come up with search and seizure court order or warrant signed by judge in their first attempt either.
You see that would be illegal due to privacy laws, human rights laws and myriad of others.
Situation solved.
This has been done for numerous human beings with excellent results.
So, you have lots of options here. Use them at your leisure.
Enjoy