In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum defendant has filed a further memorandum of law "relating to various issues".
Defendant's memorandum of law "relating to various issues"
[Ed. note: My usual admonition to law students and beginning lawyers: do not emulate anything you see from either side in this case. Very little of it is remotely connected to what normal lawyers do when engaged in the practice of law. Usually I don't pity federal judges, because they are fairly privileged people with a lot of power and a lifetime job. But in this case my heart goes out to Judge Nancy Gertner because she and her staff attorneys are the only normal lawyers working on this case, so they have to do all the heavy lifting themselves, with no help from counsel for either side. They cannot trust or rely upon, and are never helped in doing their jobs, by anything either side submits. -R.B.]
Commentary & discussion:
Copyrights & 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
4 comments:
The students who are involved in this case really need to see some examples of well-reasoned, well-structured legal writing. Briefing in the real world isn't necessarily like a legal research class, where all writers follow the IRAC structure. But I really have trouble following their writing.
Mr. Beckerman, on a future "practice tip" post, would you consider highlighting some resources and examples for legal writing? You've posted numerous briefs that are not only present solid arguments, but are also well written. Given the esoteric nature of various copyright issues, I would think that giving the court a professional, non-conclusory and easy to read brief should be a top priority.
Formulaic proscriptions for brief writing would be a recipe for mediocrity, so I would never recommend that.
I recommend reading excellent briefs, and then forming your own style. And always to be thinking, and to be thinking about how to make the Judge's load lighter.
I advise all law students to work in law firms during their law school years, so that they will get the opportunity to read and compare different briefs and writing styles.
This man finds this memorandum of law very poorly written in terms of readability, grammar, questionable use of adjectives, occasional informal begging manner, and missing words. Somebody needs a good editor or proofreader.
OTOH, he also found some gems sprinkled through it, and some points argued regarding noncommercial copyright infringement and the burden that should be required of the Plaintiffs in order to make their case that he hasn't recalled seeing before.
Verdict: good points poorly communicated.
{The Common Man Speaking}
According to Plaintiffs, a person who engages in file-sharing does so with the expectation of receiving copyrighted works in return and, thus, does so for financial gain. But it is undisputed that a user of KaZaA can download songs without sharing any songs in return. This is what MediaSentry claims it did. It is undisputed, too, that there is no deal between the users of KaZaA requiring reciprocal sharing.
This man returns for a second comment on this particular piece of the filing. It is especially good to point out how MediaSentry's own leeching actions demonstrably shoot down a major premise of the RIAA's non-commercial argument.
Files are shared for no money, and no expectation that a barter of other files in return is required or expected. That should be a blow to the RIAA's false logic as much as their equally false contention that every download is a lost sale.
{The Common Man Speaking}
Post a Comment