Thursday, November 04, 2010

Reply brief filed by amicus curiae on jury instruction issue in Capitol v Thomas-Rasset

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, amicus curiae Prof. Charles Nesson had filed a reply brief on the jury instruction issue.

Amicus reply brief

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 Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or is that amicus brief almost incoherent? I mean, it reads like it was written in five minutes or so, with a spell check pass, but no one actually reading it to make sure it was filled with sentences. Is this common?

mathinker said...

@ Anonymous

Well, it's certainly not almost incoherent in general. It is full of typos. Maybe Nesson was a bit more pressured than usual so that he could, gasp, actually submit before some deadline expired <cough>.

On the other hand, I think his ploy of filing the amicus brief at the start of the trial was quite clever. He practically couldn't lose: either the result would be a reasonable amount of damages for the defendant, or it would rub the court's nose in his "I told you so".

Nohwhere Man said...

So far, I haven't been impressed with any of Nesson's work. They generally read as academic, not as a legal documents.

Anonymous said...

Reads more like an "amicus curious" brief.