In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, defendant has been ordered to show cause why he or his counsel should not be sanctioned for violation of the Court's order regarding unauthorized reproduction.
Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered; "The Court is deeply concerned that the Defendant has violated the Court's June 16, 2009 Order  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."[Ed. note. Can someone tell me why the order to show cause should be against Mr. Tenenbaum, as opposed to his counsel? 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? -R.B.]
Commentary & discussion:
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