Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Motion for internet television access to be argued on January 13th in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum

The defendant's motion for internet television coverage of the trial and other proceedings in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum is scheduled for oral argument in a telephone conference call on January 13th. The RIAA lawyers asked for an extension of time to respond to the motion, which the Judge apparently granted only partially.

The Court's docket entry is as follows:

Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re MOTION Allows Courtroom View Network to Provide Coverage of Proceedings Over the Internet. "Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED but only until 1/12/09. The Court will hold a telephonic argument on the Motion to Provide Coverage of Proceedings on 1/13/09 at 2:00pm. Counsel shall coordinate with each other to call the Court on a single conference line at the appointed time; they should dial in to [Court]. If necessary, the Court will permit supplemental briefing following the telephonic argument."

Commentary & discussion:

Punto Informatico (Italian)

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


Anonymous said...

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

If the this is allowed to be televised,
they will drop the case, guaranteed.


Alter_Fritz said...

Not wanting to pass criticism on Judge Gertner since she seems to be doing a good reasonable and sane job as judge in these mass cases she has got ...

... but I must ask: Why the hell do those plaintiffs (no matter what judge involved though!) are so often granted extensions of time?

I think I do understand that time extension grantings is something that normally work out cooperatively between the parties in most other cases after all but it seems to Alter_Fritz that Holme, Roberts and Owen Lawyers working for this "best-known and most well-respected record companies in the United States and the world" Sony-BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Warner are extra lazy when it comes to following deadlines that were ones instituted by the judiciary to have justice work smoothly, fair and effective!

If these sue 'em all guys are unable to handle all the work they bring upon the courts with their aggressive attack on society at large then should judges not be lenient and always grant them extra time but throw the lawyers behind bars, and the cases out of their courtrooms for unreasonable vexatious conduct.

And if these criminal(?) wrongdoings committing HRO lawyers come with their worn out argument about "the right to petition the government" that they claim what it is that they doing with their "marketing for their monopoly through mass extortionate litigations" these lawyers should get a kick in their lazy, lastly so often for time extensions asking, butts instead of friendly grantings of extension.

It seems to Alter_Fritz that these guys still have some "big guy bonus" before the courts that the defendants seems not to have.
As another example me is wondering why the HRO guys did not seem to have any problems/time delays in the past to get this pro hac vice(sp?) admission of HRO guys in the local cases and yet when it turned out for example that Prof. Nesson seems to needed such a thing too it did not worked so fast in this other courtroom (Ms. Tenenbaum had to strike by hand the signature of him and hand it into the court system as pro se signed instead)

raybeckerman said...

I agree that the RIAA lawyers are extraordinarily discourteous. Were they ladies and gentlemen, they would have moved the pro haec vice admission of Prof. Nesson.

Alter_Fritz said...

Thanks Ray for agreeing :-)

But they are not gentlemen or ladies, you know that, don't you.
They even blame Prof Nesson that the Tenenbaum case is not resolved yet![1]

(As if it was Charlie that said ney to the 500 bucks that joel offered "greedy Eve"; or was it still the "Rich-G" that was initially responsible for Tenenbaum too?)

[1]"RIAA Blames Harvard Law Professor for Dragging Out File-Sharing Case" via

Reality distortionist in charge Cara "worthless Duck" Duckworth: " "[...] said the industry group had wanted to settle the case quickly, but blamed Nesson, who brought some of his students to court Tuesday, for dragging it out.

"During the past several years, thousands of regular working class folks in the music community have lost their jobs precisely because of the illegal activity involved in this case," she said in a written statement. "While this might be an interesting academic exercise for the professor and his class, there's been real world consequences for those who create music."

Anonymous said...

Quite interesting comment for someone who dragged on purpose suits against Santangelo, Anderson and many others.

-- Andres Rosado

Alter_Fritz said...

<smart ass mode>

A_F wrote: [...] to get this pro hac vice(sp?) admission of HRO guys[...] indicating with the (sp?) that he lacks information and belief about the spelling.

Ray wrote: [...]would have moved the pro haec vice admission[...]

the collective knowledge writes:

A_F: 1
Ray: 0

</smart ass mode>

It took me 3 Minutes of research, my hourly rate is $600 (well, I'm smart and also honest, that's why I'm more expensive then HRO's "first year Trainees" are).

Mr. Beckerman I allow you to send the $30 fee you owe me to the RIAA Defense Fund.


raybeckerman said...

A_F.... you're correcting my spelling? I've been doing this stuff for 34 years. When I first entered the law the majority spelling was "pro haec vice".

Anonymous said...

While in general I agree with the above statements, I do have to defend the RIAA with regard to the pro hac vice issue (and yes, it does make me feal dirty).

I think most people missed how cf'ed the first scheduled RI hearing was. From the post I read on the Harvard blog, apparently Nesson wasn't admited, not because his paper work wasn't in order but because the local lawyer they had didn't recieve his federal renewal papers in 2006 (he hasn't actually argued a case at the federal level in 30 years). So the lawyer moving to admit Nesson was the person lacking standing.

It should also be noted that the RIAA lawyer from NY also wasn't admited because the court didn't get his pro hac vice paperwork (so 4 lawyers of which only one had standing). Now normaly the judge could just grant them all standing but it was being heard by a magistrate judge who was only allowed to hear issues relating to the supboena, so even if the RIAA had moved to admit Nesson, the judge couldn't have granted it.

As I said above, massive cf.

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray wrote: I've been doing this stuff for 34 years.

Well, you know "The Times They Are A-Changing"


raybeckerman said...

And I've been listening to that song for around 45 years.