Thursday, July 09, 2009

RIAA replies to Nesson response in SONY v. Tenenbaum

The RIAA has filed a reply responding to the Nesson response in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

Plaintiffs' reply to Nesson response

[Ed. note. It was my impression based upon prior practice in this case that in Judge Gertner's courtroom one has to ask leave of court to file reply papers; these are clearly reply papers, and I do not recall there being any motion for permission. -R.B.]

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


The Common Man Speaking said...

He said, she said.

Unknown said...

"It is time for a sense of decorum and professionalism to be imposed on a case that seems to be lacking in it."


WeatherGod said...

While it might be believable that the plaintiffs didn't realize that an audio recording was occuring, I seriously doubt that they did not realize that a video recording was happening.

A video recording from an Apple laptop would require that a USB camera be used (which should be obvious to anyone in the room), or that the laptop screen be facing the party members so that the iSight camera can capture the video. With the exception of tiny hidden cameras, everyone in the room should have realized right away what was going on. In addition, if there was recording going on that the plaintiffs objected to, why didn't they file something right then?

I guess this proves the point that any agreement between two adversarial parties should make it in writing with signatures, but I doubt even that would stop this petty bickering.

Anonymous said...

Anybody read numbered paragraph 3. closely??


Alter_Fritz said...

now these words out of the wordprocessing software of "RIAA-EVE"

with all due respect; what a farce!

SHE was the one who obviously noted the "tiny black olympus" lying allegedly openly on the conference table and it was SHE who did not expressed ANY objections then to having the deposition taped by Charles Nesson!
It seems typical for this Holme Roberts & Owen Lawyer Eve Goldstein Burton to have an "extra creative way of representing facts/events in her courtpapers"!

And what is it with this newly shyness regarding the images of the lawyers working for the MAFIAA? Has HRO and or the other firms that took those cases already removed the ability to search their own websites for the pictures/CVs of the lawyers?

and one last serious question: In germany the content industry was running an "education campaign" which I would consider tainting a jury pool (if we had the concept of juries that is) and they even did that with a clear lie about the law "Raubkopierer sind Verbrecher!"
Question: Did the plaintiffs in this case used similar jury pool tainting measures in american cinemas, on TV and in newspapers/magazines which planted misinformation into the heads of potential jurors?
And if that is the case, should Professor Nesson not be complimented by the court for making the pure objective facts public instead of what the plaintiffs demand that should be done to him?

Anonymous said...

If they don't want it to become a circus, they should stop acting like clowns.

Eric said...

I hate the RIAA as much as the next internet user, but pushing the Judges buttons is not how you win a case.

Anonymous said...

Sigh, thank god this farce is almost over. Or, should I say, this round of this farce is almost over.

On one hand, we have the Copyleftists and on the other, we have the MAFIAA. It's like a bad (worse) episode of Deadliest Fighter with the most ludicrous characters possible.

Can't the national Bar assn. do something about censuring all the lawyers involved in these proceedings?


This is beyond ethics breaches, these lawyers make a mockery of the profession.


Jim said...

"6. Plaintiffs seek to litigate this case without it becoming a circus."

LOL that is to funny, I was glad I didnt have a mouth full of coffee when I read it. The RIAA doesnt want a circus?

Anonymous said...

Nothing the RIAA said changes anything -- in particular their claims about not knowing they were being recorded sound absurd.

So anyway, it seems like Nesson ignored what the judge said, and since it appears the judge thinks so too, that could be a problem for Nesson and Tenenbaum.


The Common Man Speaking said...

@JBC said:

Can't the national Bar assn. do something about censuring all the lawyers involved in these proceedings?

That's the best laugh this man has had today.

Is there even a national Bar Association? Lawyers are licensed by particular state bars.

And you're expecting lawyers to punish other lawyers? That's like asking judges, who are former lawyers, to sanction lawyers. The theory is there that it can happen, but don't hold your breath unless you want to show the rest of us just how blue you can become.

Anonymous said...

@The Common Man:

"Is there even a national Bar Association? Lawyers are licensed by particular state bars."

Let's see... There's "American Bar Association" and their Center for Professional Responsibility, the "American Intellectual Property Association," the "Federal Bar Association," and a whole big list you could have found at, say, (Not to mention the actual National Bar Association, though they would have nothing to do with this particular case.)

For the record, many professions are state licensed but oversight also happens at the national level, like medicine (nurses, NPs, physicians, etc).

And if you think that judges don't censure lawyers (or other judges) for breaches of ethics then you really need to learn more about the profession. In fact, Judge Gertner herself was called out by the Court of Appeals just for trying to set the record straight in a public forum on a previous case before her.

Meanwhile, back to the question at hand; Ray, what do you think? Do you see some form of ethics inquiry in the future for these lawyers?


T2 said...

I actually believe the RIAA's counsel when they claim they were not aware they were being recorded (audio or video). After all, the RIAA and its members have demonstrated repeatedly their lack of understanding regarding new technologies. I am frankly in awe that RIAA counsel is able to submit their court filings electronically. I'd expect papyrus or (to charge their clients much more than necessary, as unethical litigators often do) carvings on high-quality (imported) Siena marble.

Nesson may want to use this incident to point out to the court that RIAA litigators lack even rudimentary tech skills --- and therefore claims they make regarding technology are to be taken with a grain of salt the size of Manhattan.