Comments on: RIAA goes after Harvard prof Charles Nesson

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:00:36 +0000

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?

By: A_F

A_F — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000

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Would be cool if that is some kind of round anniversary to remember the capitalistic beauty that stuff that is obsolete in the marked will vanish no matter what!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!)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:58:40 +0000

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.

By: surfer

surfer — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:22:33 +0000

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.