Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tenenbaum Lawyers Now Passing the Hat

Posted by timothy on from the lawsuit-based-on-plot-of-the-producers dept.

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.'"

11 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. I have a question by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does it seem that everybody involved in these cases is an idiot? The RIAA lawyers, the defendants and their representation, the judges, the juries...they all sound like total stooges. How has everything gone so completely wrong?

    1. Re:I have a question by number11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's gone on in the 2 cases that have gone to trial is like one long, bad dream. The root problem is economics. The defendants can't afford to go out and hire a competent lawyer, and lawyers can't afford to do these cases without getting paid. A good lawyer would have either prevented the outlandish things that occurred, or developed an impervious record for an appeal.

      I have to admit, IANAL even though I read Groklaw, and I haven't been following this case closely. But I saw that the judge's rationale was that plaintiffs had asked the defendant "are you liable" and he said "yes". It seems to me that when that question was asked, all of the defense lawyers should have levitated out of their seats screaming "Objection!" Perhaps I just don't understand the routine, or maybe reflex time is the difference between academic lawyers and lawyers who actually spend their time in the courtroom.

    2. Re:I have a question by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      plaintiffs had asked the defendant "are you liable" and he said "yes". It seems to me that when that question was asked, all of the defense lawyers should have levitated out of their seats screaming "Objection!"

      You are 100% right.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    3. Re:I have a question by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there any scenario in which losing this case incompetently and ending up with an outlandish fine actually works against the RIAA? They do in the end need to win over public support and judgements like this one tell people, "piracy is dangerous but the recording industry are massively evil."

      It swings the argument away from "piracy is theft and you'll be punished" to "piracy is an act of resistance against a fascist state and you'll be crucified".

      The point being that there is no shortage of young guys willing to take the risk of getting figuratively killed if it potentially brings them the great glory of attacking an evil regime.

      IMO the motivation of the PirateBay Three was fame and glory more than anything else.

      Such judgements thus make it inevitable that the sharing of copyrighted music, movies, and TV will intensify.

      --
      My blog
    4. Re:I have a question by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there any scenario in which losing this case incompetently and ending up with an outlandish fine actually works against the RIAA?

      In one word:

      No.

      Jamie Thomas took her case twice to a jury and was twice hammered into the ground.

      Tenenbaum admits to every element of the plaintiff's case. He admits to lying under oath in his depositions.

      He also gets hammered into the ground.

      Three juries. Three verdicts. Not the faintest breath of sympathy for the geek taking the stand.

      That ought to tell you something.

    5. Re:I have a question by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the guy *was* guilty. he clearly obviously and without any doubt DID share those songs, DID download copyrighted material, and DID know what he was doing was illegal. This wasn't a single track, he had shared hundreds of songs over a long period.
      You waffle on about how "the case should have been handled better", but that's because you are a lawyer who wants his fee.
      If this guy was a friend of mine, my advice would be "dude, your guilty as fuck. Settle out of court and get on with your life".
      Only a friend who was a lawyer or an anti-copyright zealot would advise any differently.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    6. Re:I have a question by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>> It's the American People who don't give enough of a damn to participate in government

      That's not the problem. Even if everyone voted, it's the lobbyists who hold the real power to control Congress, and these lobbyists are supported by trillions of corporate dollars. It's just like Thomas Jefferson predicted in the 1790s - the corporations will exert power over the government and no longer hear the voice of the people.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. No way I would give them one penny by mr+exploiter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The money is going directly to the RIAA pockets. Be a man, declare bankruptcy and fuck the RIAA.

  3. This is what happens by davmoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first problem here is his legal representation was a bunch of idiots. The second problem here is he admitted under oath that he did it, he did it repeatedly, he continued doing it after being warned not to, lied about it under oath, and said all this in front of the jury. And what his clown collection representation should be doing now is asking the RIAA if they could belatedly negotiate a more reasonable settlement, which is what the RIAA offered to do after the fact in the Jammie Dumbbitch case.

    This case should have never gone to trial. He should have settled for a few thousand right at the start and called it a day and lesson learned.

    And the community as a whole has made a mistake in two cases now. It rallies to the support of people who really did what they were accused by the RIAA of doing. Instead of finding a way to back those being attacked by the RIAA who are in fact completely innocent, everyone and their mother throws themselves behind the guilty ones. Neither of these cases was ever "fighting the good fight".

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  4. I think it should have gone to trial by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because with a competent defense, they have an almost unwinnable case. There are just so many areas to slam them on. One of the biggest I'd go for is proof of harm. While I wouldn't have the defense admit to anything, I'd slam them on the fact they have no proof of any harm. Currently, there's only been one scientific, peer reviewed study done on file sharing. It was done by UNC and Harvard (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf). The result? File sharing has no statistically significant effect on sharing. Ok so you get that in to evidence. You can keep all their studies out on account of they paid for them (thus there's bias), there is no peer review, proper scientific method wasn't followed and so on.

    At this point, the only piece of evidence on the harm of sharing, shows that there is none. So now you argue that it isn't even relevant if the sharing took place as it caused no harm. That wouldn't be your only argument, but would be a major one.

    Another major one would be to attack the means of getting the information on what was shared and who shared it. There are so many problems with this, not the least of which that Media Sentry, the company that does the dirty work, is unlicensed as an investigator. So you can hammer them on their methods too.

    In the end, what you'd likely have is no proof your client did it, just wild ass speculations, no proof of any harm, even if they did, and so on.

    The defense was just amazingly incompetent. I mean they did stupid shit like wait too long to apply to have an expert witness speak, and thus got them excluded. That is pure amateur shit right that. "Oh duh we forgot there was a deadline." You aren't in high school, morons, you'd better be more competent than that.

  5. What is your problem with Eastern Europe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is your problem with Eastern Europe? You think that we are worse because we used to be commie states? We did not want communism in our countries, the Yalta conference decisions forced us into soviet hands. And who made the Yalta treaty? Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. They have decided about us, without us. If someone is guilty for lower development level of Easter Europe, comparing to western, it's the big three. Western Europe received the Marshall plan help, while Soviets forced us to refuse this help. Commie days were in fact Soviet occupation, allowed by western states during the Yalta conference.