Slashdot Mirror


Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Professor Charles Nesson, the Harvard law professor serving pro bono as counsel to the defendant in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, has been ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him for violating the Court's orders prohibiting reproduction of the court proceedings. The order to show cause was in furtherance of the RIAA's motion for sanctions and protective order, which we discussed here yesterday. The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."

10 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Too much detail by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals

    Yes.

    surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.

    What have you submitted lately?

  2. To be fair... by WiiVault · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...as a citizen I've been "deeply concerned" by the US Court system's "blatant disregard" for our rights against the RIAA/MPAA and their ilk.

  3. Listen to the MP3's by module0000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Check the mp3 URL's on TFA. Jury tainting is a bullshit excuse. They know damn well if the public knew the facts about what was going on in our courtroom[we pay for]: we would be outside with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch the plaintiff.

    It's a horrible attempt at keeping the taxpayers in the dark about this whole ordeal.

    --
    Trackball users will be first against the wall.
  4. Kind of expected by xbytor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The professor had to expect something like this. It's like playing chess. He'll respond with his next move, etc...

    It's interesting to watch this and the Camara case unfold. Much better than 'Lost' or Reality TV because the results actually do effect me.

  5. End It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Disconnect from the RIAA.
    - Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly.
    - Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.

    As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.

    Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

    Convince two others to do the same.

  6. Re:Too much detail by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals

    In a word, "yes".

    You can see from this article and the pressure that's being put on Professor Nesson to keep the proceedings secret that the RIAA has reasons to keep what it's doing out of the media.

    That's the best reason I can think of for making sure it gets in the media at every opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our justice system or corporate media, both of whom are heavily influenced by corporate money, to tell us what's going on.

    Maybe you think the most important thing we can read about on Slashdot is the latest patches for the iPhone, but what's happening in our courts right now is going to have a much greater impact on our lives and use of technology for years to come.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Re:Too much detail by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!

    The way I see things, that one is the actual problem. If they did not have so much undue influence over the political process they very well may have been forced to adapt to the Information Age already. Even if that isn't true at all, I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.

    I think the biggest single mistake we made was to give corporations all of the rights of a real person. The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations). That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders. If they participate in politics by means of front groups, that should be against the same law with the addition of criminal fraud charges, personally applicable to any members of management who helped to arrange it.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  8. Caroling DDoS the Courts by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly.

    DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  9. Re:Too much detail by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I disagree. This is a major issue, whether he gets sanctioned or not. At stake is whether the Judge can legally prevent him from posting a recording of a public proceeding.

  10. Re:Too much detail by jeffliott · · Score: 5, Funny

    In all seriousness, I abandoned a login after a major change in the status of my education and personal philosophy. I just didn't want to be associated with that person anymore.