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 NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. Re:I have a question by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    6. Re:I have a question by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  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. Re:$20 is too much by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Funny

    You want people to donate $600,000 to the RIAA? Is this from the Onion?

    I'm still hoping I've been pranked.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  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.