Monday, July 06, 2009

RIAA makes motion for discovery sanctions & order preventing public use of discovery materials in SONY v. Tenenbaum

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has made a motion for discovery sanctions and for a protective order barring unofficial recordings, and directing defendant's counsel to remove and destroy materials allegedly posted publicly.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery Sanctions & Protective Order



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

7 comments:

Eric said...

I feel sorry for Tenenbaum, these lawyers are digging his grave with these obvious problems. Hello, they are arguing MediaSentry violated the all-parties rule and they are recording and posting recordings ( some would argue that they new about them, but lets be honest here they need to be above board in this case ).

That on top of the copyright infringement, inexcusably sloppy handling of discovery ( and everything else ), as well as mysterious filings that boggle the mind it's amazing the judge has not handed SONY a default judgment already.

Michael Donnelly said...

Eric: I agree. I read Ray's disclaimers about this case being strange, but I still have to analyze it in some sense like a regular legal action, since that's what the judge is going to do.

What the heck is Nesson doing?

bbsux said...

ok, This is a strange situation. That folder is obviously not supposed to be publically accessable...

I think that's actually Prof Nesson's personal folder. Perhaps it needs to be passworded.

Seems to me that the RIAA has illegally accessed these files and should be sanctioned for doing so...

A private folder on a server is not meant to be publically accessable -- They must have poked around for a while to find it...

The Common Man Speaking said...

The RIAA is clearly very worried about what they've been saying and doing in this case so far and are now trying desperately to cover up their own unwise comments and actions.

Anonymous said...

This is a clear case of "whats Good for the Goose,(RIAA-MeidaSentry) is good for the Gander" (Tenenbaum and Nesson) After years of secrete investigations, the RIAA wants to complain?

derivative said...

I just read this interview with Nesson.

Not only is he unapologetic; he pleads ignorance of the Massachusetts two-party recording rule. I'm not an attorney, and (unlike Nesson who lives in Massachusetts) I live in a single party state (Texas), and even I knew that some states, including Massachusetts, don't allow this sort of thing, even before Linda Tripp got in trouble in Maryland! (Nesson must have been living under a rock to miss that.)

Anonymous said...

So, is the copyright infringement being tried under MASS State Law, or US Federal Law?

As I understand it, US Federal Law prevails (I don't know if MA even has any copyright laws on the books?).

So, if Federal Laws prevail, don't Federal guidelines for audio and video taping hold? It would have to be a Court that can hear a Federal case...

Now, last time I looked, US Federal Law had a one-party rule for taping...

And isn't this exactly Nesson's argument? Of course Sony can object, and can try to have Nesson sanctioned, and an early ruling made, but this would be a grave procedural error. It wouldn't matter, because it should then be completely thrown out on appeal.

But, you never can tell -- I am waiting to see what actually happens. There may be some fun and laughter to be had yet...

(I believe the consequences for overturning the one-party rule, means that a LOT of high profile drug and organized crime cases could come under immediate review, same procedural problem, after all).