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!
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.
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