Joel lawsuit fund NOT for the RIAA
p2pnet news view P2P | RIAA:- I just had a call from a friend in New York telling me things have changed with the Joel Tenenbaum fund.
Earlier today I posted Who’s going to pay the RIAA? – suggesting a collection being put together for RIAA victim Joel mightn’t be such a good idea because, “money raised would in one way or another go to the labels and that being so, the resounding message to Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music, Sony Music and their RIAA would be, ”You win again! Don’t worry, guys, if your victims can’t pay you, file sharers will!”
But, said my m8 in NY, “Joel made a statement.”
It’s on Joel Fights back and it says »»»
I shared music. I was the one who wanted a say in court. This lawsuit was against me. This is my verdict. I ask no one to help me. And I ask for no one to cover what I signed up for.
That being said, people started spontaneously messaging me, facebooking me, and twittering me — some even felt compelled to donate — and I have been touched. So many people saw this as their fight too, and so many people just wanted to ask how I was. I can’t keep up with the response I’ve been getting and it’s been inspiring.
Yesterday morning, I saw someone start what looked like a grassroots initiative on twitter for me. Since the verdict came down Friday afternoon, we’ve gotten about $2000. Debbie, one of the students working on my case, saw the movement and was inspired to encourage people to do the same.
Ray Beckerman makes a point: we don’t want the RIAA to be paid when I can’t afford to do it, and this money could be more valuable elsewhere. From the money raised already, I would like to reimburse my legal team for the money they’ve spent out of their own pockets, and we’ll have more court costs yet, so we will use the donations to keep us in court as far as we need to go.
If money remains beyond that, I am open to a discussion with Charlie, Ray Beckerman, and our supporters (you donated it, after all) as to what to do with the rest of it. For example, Beckerman recommendsthe FSF’s expert witness defense fund. https://my.fsf.org/donate/directed-donations/riaa/.”
“A million thank yous to everyone who feels that my story is their story too,” Joel adds.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 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.
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I know I’m going to get blasted for this, and I’m pretty certain Jon’s going to start forwarding my email to /dev/null. Such is life.
I’ll admit I’ve not been able to follow the case too well, but here’s what the summary as I see it.
Joel gets offered a settlement. Joel declines. It comes out later that Joel has been busted once before with a letter (from his ISP?) gently suggestion he C&D all his file sharing activities.
Joel gets hooked up with a well known, if not somewhat .. quirky lawyer who decides that he can possibly beat the odds. This after Jamie gets hammered.
Judge tosses out the only remotely reasonable defense, fair use. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but to me even that was a pretty big stretch. I sure hope he warmed up first and didn’t pull anything.
Joel cops to file sharing and admits to lying about it previously.
He’s not a martyr, he’s a bloody fool. I don’t see the point in publicizing this case other than to point out to other possible defendants that it’s best to get a second, or third, opinion from other lawyers. At least Jamie had a fighting chance originally. The way to change the laws, in my opinion, is not through the courts – it’s going to be changed through legislation.
Flame away, I’m certain I’ve said something worthy of it.
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Also, if Joel’s lawyer thinks he deserves to be paid, he’s almost as big a crook as the RIAA.
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I agree that there’s not much point in publicizing the case, since it was being handled in an oddball manner that overlooked the court rules and overlooked whatever limitations the substantive law offered. It’s more important to focus on cases with innocent defendants and outstanding lawyering, such as Arista v. Does 1-16 and Lava v. Amurao, both of which are presently pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Thing is, readers want to be kept up to date on it.
On my own blog I made a suggestion several months back that I was thinking of discontinuing coverage of the case, because I couldn’t bear to watch it and because the outcome would be meaningless. My readers voted 13-1 to urge me to continue coverage notwithstanding.
So, there you have it. Readers want to know about it.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Of course, you’re correct Mr. Beckerman. The readers do want to know and you and Jon are both doing a bang-up job of it.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
@tinfoil…
I haven’t got a problem with anything you’ve said.
I feel exactly the same.
I’ve been completely disappointed from Day 1 about the way Nesson’s been treating this whole thing, and the people they’ve chosen to give free legal services to. The file sharing world needs a better representation than it’s getting right now in the first so many court cases.
Yes! I appreciate Nesson giving a few people free services. And, No! I don’t think Jammie or Joel deserved anything near what they’ve gotten so far. But, this thing’s far bigger and far more important than just the 3 of them – and I don’t appreciate the charity being wasted on people who are guilty of knowingly pushing their luck too far in the first place. And, I don’t appreciate some old grandstander, who obviously doesn’t fully understand what he’s defending himself, coming into the picture and completely THROWING IT ALL AWAY FOR EVERYONE ELSE!
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
well said, the actual topics of argument have not been addressed…
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
@tinfoil
Senor tinfoil, we agree with what you’ve said. However, as far we are concerned, the results are obviously unfortunate for Joel, but we feel (not as sensitive as a spider-sense kind of feeling), that he somehow walked right into this. He seems to have known the score and what he was doing, but sadly (for him), was caught.
From what little (we admit) we know of the case and the circumstances, we feel that this is not a matter of right and wrong, at least in the eyes of the law, which says that Joel was wrong, plain and simple. This is now appears to be a matter of wrong and right, fair and unfair in terms of what he did and the fine imposed.
Which leads us to conclude that this whole thing is nothing but one cluster-f*ck.
Cheers …
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:16 am
You know, I have to say that as much as Joel may have walked into the lion’s den, I don’t know that it’s because he thought he might get away with something or was fool enough to think he might win even though he was “guilty.” (I use the term in quotes because I do not care to re-affirm the notion of his actions as criminal even if he does not deny them.) It would seem that the water runs hot and cold here at p2pnet: on one day talking smack about the “biyatches” and the next day criticising the various defendants for stepping in the bear-trap which was clearly flagged as such. For all the flapjawing and “down with the corporate a-holes” bullshit, most of us are much more bark than bite. I like to think that Joel just might have done this (even against all odds) for the decent reason that he thinks his behavior simply wasn’t criminal and he oughtn’t be prosecuted for it (or persecuted for that matter…Or extorted… Or intimidated…) Each of us should consider what path we would have chosen if we were the target instead of him and how much moxie it might take to resist the path of least resistance.
Imagine how much of a fuster-cluck we might be in if there were no one willing to set an example of how to fight tyranny. How is it that we have forgotten that LAW is made by PEOPLE and instead seem to be allowing LAW to subjugate the common good and common sense? Law is not the judge of morality, only a set of agreed upon boundaries, and should have no power over what we decide it ought to have. If the battle is going to be fought on legal ground then we must start standing on the field in order to fight, else lose by forfeit anyway. Even if he walked into it, it was the proper thing to do.
Without fear there is no courage, and courage is usually an excellent deterrent to bullies. Especially when one little picked-on nerd starts to inspire a mob into resistance.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Jon, I have a bone to pick about your comment rules:
“Please no Spam, flaming (attacking others), trolling, and posting off-topic.”
Aren’t we still on the internet? Or did I take a wrong turn?
(Just kidding)