Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Threatens Harvard Law Prof With Sanctions
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Unhappy with Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson's motion to compel the deposition of the RIAA's head 'Enforcer', Matthew J. Oppenheim, in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA threatened the good professor with sanctions (PDF) if he declined to withdraw his motion. Then the next day they filed papers opposing the motion, and indeed asked the Court to award monetary sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
From the first link: 'Mr. Oppenheim is the person who has been identified by the RIAA lawyers sometimes as the "client", sometimes as the "industry representative", and sometimes as the "client representative", and on at least one occasion as "the only person who had settlement authority" for the RIAA members. He claims to be associated with an entity called "The Oppenheim Group", and has acted as attorney of record for the record companies in several proceedings in Washington, D.C.'
So, if he represents the interests of the artists, (ahem), why is he - or his legal team, taking such extraordinary steps to avoid testifying?
It's not about the law. It's about money! Stop interfering with our money-making!
You have money SO, you can hire good lawyers SO, you can prolong the process making the necessary appeals to higher courts for a long long time
Nothing new to see here, move along.
Does this constitute barratry? Whether you agree with the case or not, the defendant has a right to representation. The only way that can be atacked is by plaintiffs representative in court. That's what they're for. That's how the system is designed to work.
But any "off field" attempts to defeat the defence should be considered as contempt of court. What next, slashing his tires so he can't get to the court house?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, IANAL, but it kinda sounds illogical. When you can't present your case, how can you have one? Isn't that like saying "I sue you, but I won't tell you why, I only want you to be convicted and forced to pay me a sum that springs from my imagination"?
Thinking about it again... that's pretty much how they do it, ain't it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
RIAA's lawyers actually wrote this in the threat: "Defendent's repeated failures to follow basic rules of procedure is making this case far more expensive and time consuming than it should be." hmm... I'd almost say something like, Plaintiff's repeated contortions of basic rules of procedure is making multiple cases far more expensive and time consuming than it should be.
Even cooler is that you:
- don't have to worry about your kid scratching the DVD and making it unplayable
- can easily skip the fscking "no skip" crap that every DVD seems to have
- can FIND the movie when you want to watch it
In almost every way, the ripped copy of the DVD is better than the physical disc
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
But what Oppenheimer is doing is using the attorney-client privilege to create a legal "black hole" whereby some substantive operations of the company (the RIAA) that businessmen commonly have control over are instead controlled by the lawyer, creating a situation where documents that would otherwise not be privileged magically are.
Privilege extends to legal work alone. If someone happens to be a properly licensed attorney and you hire them to be your accountant, they can still be called on in court to testify as to accounting things. Using a lawyer for contractor management (even if the contractors are lawyers) is *not* legal work, and thus isn't related to priviledge. The only "magic" that appears is when you are willing to lie and say things are legal work when they are not.
Learn to love Alaska
Their battle is to enforce (a certain subsection of) the law until it doesn't need to be enforced. Just like any honest law enforcement agency you care to name. That's no conspiracy; anyone in a functioning democracy can read up about their responsibilities regarding IP.
However, just like most dishonest law enforcement agencies, they are not above threatening people who aren't doing anything wrong.
There really isn't much more to read into it than that.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The real beauty of the letter is that Private Eye didn't tell them to fuck off, they just asked for information. The information they asked for made it abundantly clear the intent but didn't voice the intent or bind them to any course of action.
I'm not a lawyer, but I appreciate a well crafted argument. This one speaks volumes without actually saying anything.
So what they are actually doing is some kind of legal suicide attack?
What they've been doing the past 5 1/2 years has been a legal suicide attack.
The only survivors are their law firms.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
You might have a better argument with knowledge. But no, you do not have a fundamental right to be entertained at someone else's expense. Sorry.
And you would know. You're fairly well traversed in the area of spin.
Personally, since Courtney got sober, I'm waiting for her to finish detoxing so we can see just what kind of artist she really is. Should only take a couple more years...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Don't steal, and don't violate their TOC.
You mean like how the RIAA/MPAA and their paid congressmen have stolen countless millions of dollars' worth of content from the public domain through continued retroactive copyright extensions?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
It's rather strange - do they think the judge in the case has no knowledge of proper procedure? Or is it a simple delaying tactic? In how many different ways can Oppenheim claim to be affiliated with the lawsuits without revealing his actual role in the litigation campaign?
By the way, thanks for bringing the information to light - we all have to work for a living, but this stuff is too interesting to ignore!
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
1) If you are making a backup then you are OK, but face it, this crap started because too many people distribute movies on the net so people don't have to shell the money out. In all honesty if they came to your house and you could show them a 1:1 ratio every dvd/cd backup with the original, they would apologize and leave your house. Chances are it would be a ratio of 100:1 pirated:legit.
Of course. Anyone who wants to rip discs to a different format is a warezie. That's logic if ever I saw it. Sir, you could out-debate a horse!
2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it and do not use the product. If you like the product that much then use it how they asked you to use it.
I'm actually not sure what you think you're trying to say here. Modifying the movie would require a copy on your hard disk, and hard disks don't HAVE a TOC! (In fact, on newer recordable media, ATIP/PMA is arguably the correct term anyhow.) You might, of course, mean Terms of Use, or something, in which case I'd suggest you go fuck yourself, because nobody signs anything when they buy a movie, and it's fascist assumptions such as 'corporations can bind us to whatever we want without our recourse' which get society broadly raped over time. You're a REALLY sharp one, aren't you?
I don't know why these issues are so hard to understand. Don't steal, and don't violate their TOC. If you think the movie sucks and is not wtflol worth the money then don't buy it, don't watch it. Wait for it to come out on TV and you can have it for free (not really since there is advertising) or borrow the movie from a friend. There are plenty of ways to watch a movie/hear a tune which doesn't require you to steal it or modify the DVD.
So, while you're against warez (that much of a consistent position was at least present in your ramblings, remind me to tip your speechwriter!), you have no problem with people borrowing discs off their friends. How, exactly, is this any different? (other than the ENTIRELY LEGAL AND NOT AT ALL PRAGMATIC argument about the number of copies in existence, and the desire for copyright law originally to make non-tangible goods resemble tangible ones).
There are cogent arguments for not infringing peoples' copyrights. You, sir, have made none of them.
You're doing it wrong.