Monday, June 22, 2009

RIAA asks court to assess attorneys fees against Joel Tenenbaum for discovery motion

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has made a motion to punish Joel Tenenbaum by assessing attorneys fees and costs against him for the RIAA's motion to compel discovery, which the Court had granted.

Plaintiffs' motion to assess attorneys fees & costs against Joel Tenenbaum

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


Alter_Fritz said...

while I have a feeling (because of the "warning tone" of some of the last few entries of Judge Gertner in the Tenenbaum case) that she might be inclined to grand plaintiffs' motion here, I hope she puts her alleged feelings beside and rules purly based on objective facts!
Given that, I do hope that she will punish Eve Goldstein Burton also purely on facts for the frivolous motion RIAA-Eve made here with all the willful misstatements about the issue at hand for this motion and not because Judge Gertner might feel that this Eve Goldstein Burton should be punished because she is "full of it" (her habit of telling stuff that has no basis in objective facts I mean! See in LINDOR the papers signed by Eve Goldstein Burton as example for her unethical habits!) but because of behaviour that is attributable to her in THIS case!
Just as it should be the case on the other side when it comes to Tenenbaum and an incident that has nothing to do with defendant Tenenbaum but with 3rd parties like some guys named Ray and Charles!

Alter_Fritz said...

P.S. I forgot the footnote regarding the example of Eve Goldstein Burtons Behaviour that runs IMO contrary to the spirit of ethical behaviour and -at least as I feel it- Rule 11.
Eve Goldstein Burtons's modus operandi of telling misstatements


Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

That's... odd. Though I guess it's perfectly par for the course in this case.

Eric said...

I know you don't like to discuss this circus of a case, but if defendant's council has certified that a sound recording was posted and it came from a completely independent source then WTF!? It's a completely new and independent copyright violation distinct from any original claim.

At this point I hope Tenenbaum has sought a second opinion since his "legal" team has probably managed to put themselves into a whopping conflict of interest through their independent action. If they intend to use the information at trial it would be hugely prejudicial as well.

All in all, one big mess.

raybeckerman said...

I wish you would clarify when you use the name Ray that you're not talking about me.

My prediction: motion denied (quickly).

Alter_Fritz said...

In my previous comment I was referring to this Ray who allegedly created a password protected archive container and mailed the storage location and the password to his professor Charles Nesson who then made this mail public on HIS own blog. I was NOT referring to Ray Beckerman.

hope that helps

Anonymous said...

Came across this article. I couldn't find further references, but thought you may have heard about it.


raybeckerman said...

Anonymous K

That article is quoting from this decision.