Slashdot Mirror
Tenenbaum Lawyers Now Passing the Hat
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Just when you think this case couldn't get any stranger, it now appears that the defendant's 'legal team' in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum is passing the hat, taking up a collection. Only the reason for the collection isn't to defray costs and expenses of further defending the action, but to pay the RIAA the amount of the judgment so that their client won't have to declare bankruptcy. I would suggest there might have been a much better way of avoiding bankruptcy. It's called 'handling the case competently.'"
'New' RIAA overlords? Haven't they been around since 1952?
Only the decision of a court superior to the one making the decision is binding on it. That means that the decision of a trial court such as this does not constitute a binding precedent - only decisions of appellate courts constitute binding precedents, and then only on courts inferior to them. Thus, a decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all federal courts, but a decision of the Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit is only binding within the 9th Circuit.
I don't know whether or not you're joking, but just in case you aren't...
The fines were not adjusted to a level that was intended to keep people from file sharing. The fines were set long before Napster was ever contemplated. The fines were set back when a lone person wasn't the target of copyright law, companies were. For example, in China, where copyright is weak, people make lots of money pirating movies and selling them without paying any royalties to the people who make the movies. They were also designed to prevent people from setting up their own movie theater and selling tickets to a movie without sharing the profits. US copyright law is intended to prevent this type of piracy--people profiting from piracy.
What we have here is that RIAA lawyers discovered that a single person pirating a song or movie (but not profiting from it) happens to fit under the same definitions as those folks that sell pirated movies for profit.
Additionally, if I recall correctly, the fine scheme is set up such that a plaintiff can demand actual damages OR statutory damages. Statutory damages being included as an option because in the type of damage caused by a person selling pirated DVDs/CDs/tickets to their own illegit theater are often extremely difficult to prove. So Congress chose a number that would shut down a piracy business.
Immense fines don't do a very good job preventing people from downloading music because it just doesn't seem realistic. Because it's absurd. Individuals are reaping fines designed for companies. It's like getting the death penalty for stealing a CD (note, by the way--downloading music is not the same as stealing a CD--that record store had to pay for that CD).
Guilty and liable are two separate things. You can actually violate a law and not be liable to any of it's consequences.
The problem here I believe was that he didn't have the money to settle out of court until after they were committed to trial. At that point, he already talked to a lawyer who saw that he was probably guilty but not liable or at least liable to the extent of the out of court settlement.
When the judge asked if he was liable, the answer should have been no all the way. The big upset here is that the judge is the trier of facts, not a prosecutor or investigator. He shouldn't be able to ask the defendant misleading questions, he is supposed to let counsel present the evidence and then determine what happened. His lawyers should have objected to the question on those grounds alone and instructed Tenenbaum that his position was they he might be guilty but not liable. In fact, that was the position of his case with the constitutionality claims on the penalties and fair use claims and so on.
The question of whether you are liable when the issue is did you do X if so then you are liable is misleading at best because of the intrinsic connection to the guilt of an action. Comming from the judge is even worse. It's like waking someone from a deep sleep to ask them for permission to do something knowing they won't fulling comprehend the question and grant permission. Except in this case, he ended up admitting he was liable under the confusion which negated all of his other claims to a defense against the liability.
Not true. They also represent a massive number of smaller labels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels
Some labels are not RIAA, but most are.
The guy made offers twice to give everything he had to the RIAA. He even mailed them over $5000. They returned his check.
Put identity in the browser.
... the judge is the trier of facts ...
This may be a bit pedantic, but in a jury trial such as this the judge is the trier of law and the jury is the trier of fact. If this was a bench trial however, you'd be correct - the judge would try both fact and law.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
They also represent a massive number of smaller labels
The litigation campaign has involved only the Big 4, plus their affiliates, and has not involved any of the smaller labels. But the dues of the smaller labels are helping the RIAA carry out its dastardly work on behalf of the Big 4. So I think all RIAA labels should be boycotted, and I frequently consult RIAA Radar.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman probably has a multitude of reasons for choosing his nickname but it won't be for lack of a degree as you can see from his short biography [beckermanlegal.com] he not only has a degree but cum laude acclamation as well. Also it indicates he did follow the path of Lincoln somewhat in that he worked his way through night school at a law firm, which might have a bit to do with his choosing that handle.
Working in a law firm while attending law school was definitely a key factor in my legal training; the interaction between the two experiences was truly remarkable, and I would recommend it to anyone contemplating law school. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my choice of the Slashdot handle "NewYorkCountryLawyer". I chose that because I like to think of myself as a "country lawyer", albeit one stuck -- by the nature of his practice -- in a big city. To me, a country lawyer is a lawyer who uses common sense, cares about his clients, and conducts himself honorably first and foremost, because he wants to be able to hold his head up in the community. When I chose the name I was thinking of Sen. Sam Ervin, who famously introduced himself as "just a country lawyer", immediately before proceeding to bring the entire "tricky" Nixon administration to justice.
Oh and he has admitted in the past that he has gained a bit of an education here as he sought to learn more about computers and networking to improve his ability to defend his client via preventing the RIAA filling the court's ear with false and improper "facts" unchallenged.
Most decidely I have learned much on Slashdot, of many things.
He has taught us many things as well.
Thank you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful