Monday, February 23, 2009

Tenebaum replies to RIAA papers, argues Matthew Oppenheim should be deposed in District of Massachusetts #RIAA

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the defendant has filed reply papers arguing that Matthew Oppenheim's deposition has been properly noticed.

Defendant's motion for leave to file reply brief in support of motion to compel Matthew Oppenheim deposition
Defendant's reply in support of motion to compel Matthew Oppenheim deposition
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D



Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Clear, concise and straight forward. I only hope that the judge sees it this way.

Go Dr. Nesson!

derivative said...

Also even-tempered.

I would have had a hard time not saying "Sanctions!!! Who does it look like deserves the sanctions!!!?!"

But I'm sure the professor's way is better.

Shane said...

Why do I get the feeling that the RIAA is still going to claim that Oppenheim is a lawyer who can't be deposed, when that is convenient, and the absolute *client* and the only one with settlement authority, when that is convenient. The RIAA doesn't believe in estoppel.

Anonymous said...

From what I have seen, read and heard about Dr. Nesson, I wouldn't put it past him to get the RIAA's attorneys to paint themselves in a corner. This man didn't get his reputation and a post at Harvard without being damn good at what he does.

Alter_Fritz said...

Shane, unless you only have judges that have recording contracts with the plaintiffs themself (or are otherways connected with them without recurseing(sp?) themself from ruling on those cases that Evil4 is bringing;
unless then, it does not matter what RIAA believes in or not. The judges that are law abiding will show those plaintiffs what can be done and what can't.
It is just that since Justicia is blind, it takes a while till they see it that these plaintiffs and their lawyers from J&B, HRO and the likes are deliberately and with fully conscious are doing their violations against your courtrules.

Alter_Fritz said...

would you please be so nice and post the mentioned exhibits too?

Jonathan said...

Mr. Nesson doesn't mess around... from Exhibit A:

MS. GOLDSTEIN BURTON: There is no
privilege on when an attomey was retained.
MR. NESSON: Litigate it.

(your serve, Ms. Goldstein Burton!)

Alter_Fritz said...

Danke schoen!