Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Parties submit joint proposed jury questionnaire in SONY v Tenenbaum

The parties have jointly submitted a proposed jury questionnaire in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

Joint proposed jury questionnaire

[Ed. note. It seems to me that both legal teams have a greatly inflated sense of their own importance, a distorted view of how the trial will be conducted, and little practical experience. I'm expecting a no-nonsense trial, with no baloney in it about all the other people who allegedly infringed plaintiffs' copyrights, or all of the unfairness of the RIAA's lawsuits, or anybody's theories about the internet, or 'burning' or 'ripping'. I'm expecting a simple trial presided over by a stern, no-nonsense judge, about whether this defendant infringed certain copyrights. I'm predicting that nothing resembling this questionnaire will be used. Judge Gertner will probably provide a much more normal and much simper version, or use the Court's standard version if it has one.-R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net




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:

Anonymous said...

It seems that a lot of those questions are exceptionally personal, and could be construed as the juror admitting to the offense that the defendant is accused of committing. Can a jury member or potential jury member refuses to answer based on privacy / non-incrimination issues or would that subject the juror to potential contempt charges?

Anonymous said...

Poor Judge Gertner.

Above all, poor Joel.

Sebastien said...

Wow, I would never ever in a million years answer this questionaire truthfully.

Not with my name and address in there.
It's like asking for have an RIAA lawsuit drop on your head.

Anonymous said...

Nope, they aren't fishing for new victims, err defendants. Nope, not at all.