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.'"
If you can't declare bankruptcy and escape the life-destroying debt it is time to go on the run. I would suggest Eastern Europe, it is not easy to make money doing TOEFL anymore but you can always sling hash and weed to the English-Speaking tourists. For some reason British/French/German tourists trust American tour guides/drug dealers more so than the average E. European.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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?
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Wouldn't the defendant have been able to refuse to answer, or at least raise concerns, regarding that sort of questioning as well?
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Is there any scenario in which losing this case incompetently and ending up with an outlandish fine actually works against the RIAA?
I'd like to think so, but in all honesty, no. When a case is mishandled this way, it will create problems for the competent lawyers representing innocent defendants all across the country. Because the RIAA lawyers will look for any way possible to capitalize on it.
From a PR standpoint, who knows?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's a violation of international law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
I'm surprised they allowed the defendant on the stand. Maybe the rules for civil procedure are different than criminal.
I still think they should appeal the case rather than pay the fine. His sentence is equivalent to a life sentence since that's how long it would take him to work & earn the money. A "life sentence" seems cruel-and-unusual punishment (and therefore unconstitutional) for the mere act of bittorrenting 30 dollars worth of songs.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Usually I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but what if he was bribed to essentially throw his own case in order to set some kind of legal precedent? I mean, it takes a special, special brand of stupid to plead guilty in circumstances like these. I honestly wouldn't put it past the RIAA to pull something like that, considering their track record (MediaSentry's constant flouting of the law comes to mind).
When I'm practicing law, my appraisal of the mistakes of my adversary is not something I would discuss; I am there to point out the law and the facts and to advocate on the basis of the law and the facts. If my adversary has made a mistake, so be it, but there is not much to be gained in pointing out to the Court that the other side has inferior representation.
When, on the other hand, I am a blogger or other commentator writing about legal events, it comes up from time to time -- more so in this case than in any other case upon which I have reported -- to mention omissions or mistakes by counsel and/or by judges. Were I to exercise a "professional courtesy" and refrain from pointing them out, I would be betraying the trust of my readers.
If you really care to understand, you need to separate the practice of law from the practice of journalism.
I have one frequent critic who loves to disingenuously cross the line between the two in mounting his attacks; I hope you are not he.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful