In SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, Prof. Nesson has filed a 'notice' containing an apology.
'Notice' of 'apology'
[Ed. note: To you law students and young lawyers out there; please don't think you can learn anything from this case. Just ignore everything you are seeing from both sides. I have seen more bizarre filings from both sides' lawyers than I would imagine possible. Please don't ask me where in the federal rules there is a provision for a notice of apology. Last time I looked, there isn't any such provision. Please do not practice law 'from the seat of your pants' the way the lawyers for both sides are doing in this case; that is a sure path to failure.
I'm tempted to stop coverage of this madness, except for its entertainment value. I personally find it more upsetting than entertaining, though, due to the harm this could be causing to other defendants all across the country. In any event, in the interest of 'reporting the news', however sickening it may be to me personally, I will continue.
I can only hope that more good than bad comes out of this nonsense, but I am not in the least sanguine about it. We have a judge who has done a lot of harm to the Massachusetts victims of the RIAA litigation onslaught, and who is of the view that the substantive law overwhelmingly favors the RIAA, despite the ex parte star chamber processes, insufficient pleadings, faked legal theories, hearsay evidence, illegally procured evidence, and most of all insufficient evidence, upon which she has granted ex parte orders, granted judgments, and helped to force unconscionable settlements. She has signed hundreds and hundreds of orders and judgments and other rulings in favor of the RIAA; it took her 4 1/2 years to make even a single, slight ruling, in favor of a defendant. To go into that forum, without adequate preparation, is disaster, not only for the defendant but for all the other people having to defend RIAA cases all across the country, because any ruling adverse to Tenenbaum will be cited by the RIAA ad nauseum.
Meanwhile, as the substance of the apology, I do not even know what Prof. Nesson is talking about. Mr. Oppenheim has frequently presented himself as "the client", the "client representative", and as a "principal" of the client. There was nothing out of line about seeking his deposition as one of the corporate representatives. What was out of line was Prof. Nesson's failure to include all of the evidence of Mr. Oppenheim's having made such representations to the courts in other cases, to the effect that he was not the lawyer, he was a principal of the client record companies. I.e. Prof. Nesson should be apologizing to his client, and to all the other defendants whose cases he might be hurting. -R.B.]
Commentary & discussion:
Copyrights and Campaigns
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