tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post2706889987046313970..comments2024-03-19T05:51:45.838-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: Hearing in Rhode Island this morning in Tenenbaum case, relating to production of defendant's parents' computerraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-30025623422691360232008-12-17T13:10:00.000-05:002008-12-17T13:10:00.000-05:00I'm a 2L student, and I'm reading an interesting c...I'm a 2L student, and I'm reading an interesting case in our professional responsibility class. <BR/><BR/>This is 475 US 1121, 106 S.Ct. 1638, 90 L.Ed2d 184., in which a city hired a private attorney to bring proceedings against an adult book store with a contingent fee if he won. Part of the ruling regarded the prosecutor's duty of neutrality.<BR/><BR/>the prosecutor "is a representative of the sovereign" and "has the vast power of the government available to him" the contingent fee compromises the duty of fairness and neutrality.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that the RIAA is just such a hired prosecutor with a contingent fee.<BR/><BR/>2L studentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-52410627410117441082008-12-15T18:00:00.000-05:002008-12-15T18:00:00.000-05:00Since every person is connected to every other per...Since every person is connected to every other person by only a few degrees of separation at best (this man is only a few degrees from Mr. Beckerman, for example) by the RIAA's apparent logic they can sue one person, demand computers from everyone that person knows, demand computers from everyone those people know, and continue until that one case gives them rights to inspect every computer in the country.<BR/><BR/>Just how any court could even entertain a motion to examine computers of non-parties to this case (Plaintiff lawyers deserve sanctions for even just asking for such a thing in this man's opinion) completely escapes this man. This is discovery run amok, to put it in its most polite terms. To grant such a motion turns on its head the very concept of privacy -- and to the RIAA of all people, who are not even the government!<BR/><BR/>{The Common Man Speaking}Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-48452825142709889342008-12-15T10:13:00.000-05:002008-12-15T10:13:00.000-05:00Debbie wrote: "Now it’s his parents. Who’s next?"H...Debbie wrote: "Now it’s his parents. Who’s next?"<BR/><BR/>Here, me me! <BR/>I want to be next! Since I have a Tannenbaum right next to my PC standing, I guess I'm guilty by association. *Me making whistling noises resembling "Oh Tannenbaum, oh Tannenbaum wie grün sind deine Blätter"*<BR/><BR/>Kidding aside, those that have seen the RIAA lawyers in action already know that this move by them is nothing new. They have shown it already in Lindor when they intimidated the employer of the son that they would *love* to snoop around all the companies PCs that the son (who was not accused)had access to.<BR/>I guess a court proceeding like a hearing are public also in so far that recording it is allowed. I would like to hear RIAA-EVE once more asking Charlie if he is taping the proceedings to make them more open to the interested public that can not be there personly.Alter_Fritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861406779872744163noreply@blogger.com