Joel v the RIAA: ‘curiouser and curiouser’
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “Even though it hardly seems possible, the Tenenbaum saga keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.
“Perhaps unfortunately for Joel, it is also getting seriouser and seriouser.
“Sanctions are not a tea party.”
So says Canadian copyright expert Howard Knopf on the case of the Big 4 record labels, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music and their RIAA, against a Boston, student Joel Tenenbaum, and his team of Harvard law students, led by Harvard law professor professor Charlie Nesson.
Both Knopf and New York lawyer Ray Beckerman, who runs Recording Industry vs the People, the famed Net repository of documents and cases centering on the unceasing efforts of the Big 4 labels to drive their own customers away, note that in In Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenenbaum, Joel has been ordered to show cause why he or his counsel shouldn’t be sanctioned for violation of the Court’s order regarding unauthorized reproduction.
And they both quote judge Nancy Gertner (right), who’s hearing the case and whose input and decisions are frequently interesting, to say the least.
She states »»»
The Court is deeply concerned that the Defendant has violated the Court’s June 16, 2009 Order [850] as well as the Court’s oral order at the June 26, 2009 hearing. Both orders made clear that deposition recordings, while permitted within the terms of Rule 30(b)(3), were not to be made public via the internet. Indeed, at the hearing, the Court said that “recording” the upcoming deposition did not mean “posting it on the internet,” to which Mr. Nesson replied, “Okay. Thank you.”
Although Mr. Nesson did not object to the order, seek to clarify it, or raise any issue with respect to either the fact of the order or its breadth, he nevertheless made portions of the Palfrey deposition available to the public on the Berkman Center website. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/palfrey%20_deposition01.mp3 (last visited July 7, 2009); http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~nesson/after_my_tweet.mp3 (last visited July 7, 2009). As a result, the Defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, by July 9, 2009, why he or his counsel should not be sanctioned for what appears to be blatant disregard of a court order on an issue that the Court has addressed repeatedly in this case.” (Gaudet, Jennifer) [link to June 16 order added by C&C; URLs re .mp3s were in original]
“Can someone tell me why the order to show cause should be against Mr. Tenenbaum, as opposed to his counsel?” – Ray asks, adding:
“What did Joel Tenenbaum have to do with any of this? And if the order to show cause is against Mr. Tenenbaum, shouldn’t he have independent counsel?”
Says Howard, “This stems from Prof. Nesson’s apparent proclivity for posting things he shouldn’t to the internet in contravention of apparently clear court orders. Here’s Nesson’s position.”
Stay tuned.
Howard Knopf – Curiouser and Seriouser for Tenenbaum, July 7, 2009
Joel Tenenbaum – p2pnet talks to RIAA victim Joel Tenenbaum, December 23, 2008
Harvard law students – p2pnet talks to Harvard Tenenbaum Team, April 1, 2009
Charlie Nesson – Charlie Nesson’s unorthodox tactics, July 1, 2009
Recording Industry vs the People – Order to show cause issued by Judge Gertner to defendant for sanctions for violation of court order in SONY v Tenenbaum, July 7, 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.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Anyone want a bet that when this is all over, Harvard will no longer be exempt from infringement and lawsuit notices like they were in the past? I’ll bet the students there won’t be too happy with Crazy Charlie after that…
July 8th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
These music parasites do not move into a court case until it is properly rigged and corrupted.
So now what is to be done is to uncover the fraud before the trial end.
The problem is that some time once an obvious fraud as been uncovered there is no consequence. This is what happened during the pirate bay trial. They were no way the pirate bay operators could have been found guilty of any thing without some heavy corruption of the justice system.
This is how bad the music parasites have managed to corrupt justice systems in many part of the world such as France, Germany Sweden England, USA, Australia, new Zealand . . . They are working hard on Canada and spain but did not succeed yet so far.
But guess what? No justice no peace.
Whoever is messing up with the law are working for their own destruction because once the law is gone, it is gone.
Any way if these entertainment parasites think it will make us come back as customers they are delusional. They are playing with fire.
NO MOVIE! NO DVD NO CD! NO DOWNLOAD NO TV!
BOYCOTT THE RIAA/MPAA!
WE CAN NOT AFFORD CORPORATIONS OF PARASITES IN OUR SOCIETIES!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
judge Nancy Gertner (right) is bought by the RIAA!
We should catch her strip her tar and feather her, slam her into a jail and throw the key!
She know joel verdict already?
Fine! we know her verdict to!
We can not afford criminal judges accepting bribes! That’s all!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Pleas can somebody else record the audio of the trial and spread it on the internet anonymously?
Thanks!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“The Court is deeply concerned that the Defendant has violated the Court’s June 16, 2009 Order [850]”
And we are deeply concerned by the corruption of the court dixit Nancy Gertner!
Fuck the court order and fuck the court!
July 8th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
These comments worry me. Not that I find them disturbing, or that I disagree with them (quite the opposite).
What worries me is that this will simply get worse and worse until something snaps. I do not want to be there when it does. I want even less to be on the wrong end of it.