RIAA goes after Harvard prof Charles Nesson
p2pnet news view RIAA | P2P:- Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US) have for years used the international corporate press to vilify their own customers as criminals and thieves who are robbing the music industry blind by sharing music online with each other.
But students and children aren’t their only targets.
Their latest victim is American law professor Charles Nesson who, with his team of Harvard students, is defending Joel Tenenbaum, accused by the RIAA of being a massive online distributor of copyrighted music files.
Judge Nancy Gertner ruled the Courtroom View Network could narrowcast a live video of the oral arguments – originally slated to be heard yesterday in the US District Court in Boston – to Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, which would then publicly re-broadcast the video.
But, having ruthlessly and shamelessly exploited the mainstream media for years, the RIAA is now throwing up its metaphysical hands in horror at the prospect of itself being in the public eye for all to see, demanding permission be revoked.
Said Gertner in her decision to allow the TV broadcast »»»
At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material.
Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities.
Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation …
Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act
The RIAA is threatening Nesson with Rule 11 sanctions and fighting a motion to force Matthew Oppenheim, the ex-RIAA lawyer now in private practice but who turns up like a bad penny in the background of various RIAA cases, to be deposed, says Recording industry vs The People.
In Sony BMG Music v Tenenbaum, “the RIAA has filed its papers opposing the defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Matthew J. Oppenheim and requested that the Court award monetary sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37,” says RIvTP, linking to a January 21 letter in which RIAA hired lawyer Timothy M. Reynolds threatens Nesson with Rule 11 or Rule 37 sanctions (Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Matthew J. Oppenheim and Exhibit A — January 21, 2009, Letter of Timothy M. Reynolds Threatening Rule 11 Sanctions).
The RIAA accuses Tenenbaum of being a massive distributor of copyrighted music, but only cites seven songs.
Late last year Nesson challenged the constitutionality of the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act and the RIAA bid to use it against Tenenbaum.
He also says fines of between $750 to $150,000 for alleged willful infringement, which can be imposed under act, aren’t appropriate.
Yesterday, “An expedited briefing schedule which will lead to a decision on whether or not Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA will be able to block the online telecast of oral arguments in Sony BMG Music v Tenenbaum has has been fixed by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with January 29 as the deadline for Tenenbaum’s opposing briefs and for any amicus curiae briefs for any third parties,” we quoted RIvTP as saying.
The RIAA has until February 2 for its response, we said, adding:
“The appeals court left open the question of whether or not it’ll want oral argument, or will instead decide the RIAA’s petition on the papers.
The Big 4’s RIAA filed a panicky emergency appeal, ‘arguing that a Webcast of court proceedings could prejudice it with the public,’ says MediaPost.
“The organization contends that users might re-edit clips of court proceedings in a way that distorts the group’s positions.”
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
January , 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.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
you mean the OTHER 65% of the world’s population that have no clue as to what’s going on could become informed?
and just the existence of over 32,000 lawsuits against innocents, children, printers, and the dead wasn’t enough to distort the ‘group’s’ position? they are petitioning the court to hinder the education of the masses as to the lecherous motivations, and legal abuses battered into the heads of its primary customer base?
you mean televising the abuse of position to extort money on zero evidence, having the one victory ruled a mistrial (read farce), and misquoting of law to suit our needs could distort the MAFIAA position any more ?!?
Coyright infringement is a civil matter, NOT criminal.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
now there is a new tactic.
make the hearings public via web cast to get the RIAA to drop the case…
this might actually work since the RIAA will do almost anything to prevent the public from seeing what it is up too.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Reader’s Write Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
you are wrong! While this “tactic” might be something other defendants that does not ahve this prominent counsel should think about, you can BET that Charlie, his students and Joel are NOT interested in getting the RIAA to drop the case!
He is challenging the constitutionality of all the stuff, and he has counterclaims in the pipe (those that are about to be ruled at this particular hearing). He will not let RIAA now easily drop their case now after thei refused first 500 and then 5000 bucks! (At least not if his counterclaims can not stand in case RIAA throws in the Towel yet again like they are doing more often “in the year they will become history — 2009″ [hopefully]
Btw what was the year that the horse-drawn carriage finally became obsolete as a means to get people transportation done? Maybe if Evil4 become history this year since they, as a means of getting sound transportation to the customer done, are obsolete too.
Would be cool if that is some kind of round anniversary to remember the capitalistic beauty that stuff that is obsolete in the marked will vanish no matter what! (not even if the so called democratic government uses communistic like fostering and sidetaking with obsolete industries!)
January 25th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Can anyone here respond to the substance of the Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions? It alleges that there was not a Rule 26 discovery meeting between the parties, as required under Federal Rules. Nesson’s motion to compell seems to suggest that there was, and even references some docket numbers of followup additions. Seems the fundamental issue here is no the merits of whether the deposed should be forced to submit, but whether they ever had the inital discovery meeting.
Anyone here with some insight?