Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Threatens Harvard Law Prof With Sanctions

Posted by timothy on from the those-lucky-artists-sure-have-a-zealous-benefactor dept.

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."

6 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Who is this guy, & why does he not want to spe by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  2. You don't get it, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not about the law. It's about money! Stop interfering with our money-making!

    1. Re:You don't get it, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      going one step up, er... down, money is about control.

      That explains why RIAA heads seem not to care if their actions get them hated or boycotted. Their battle is making people accept Intellectual Property being enforced. Is it a primary objective or just a way to terrorize people and prevent them for doing other things, like, you know, looking at what other powerful people do to society, dunno.

      Those who collected enough power to be able to influence how much money is printed have no interest in having more or less money. They want money to have maximum control over as much people as possible. This effort shaped the history of the latest centuries, somebody call it conspiracy, i call it a natural outcome of control freaks interacting with other people.

    2. Re:You don't get it, do you? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Copyright eventually runs out

      You must be old here.

  3. Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Wasting resources by immakiku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.