There are 2 RIAA trolls who are 'up each other's a**es' agreeing with each other about how unkind I have been to criticize the work of the defendant's "legal team" in SONY v. Tenenbaum on my blog and on Slashdot. They're not attacking any of the other 25,000 or so Slashdotters who have also criticized the work of defendant's legal team.
Important update: Mr. Tenenbaum has issued a statement changing course, and indicating that the contributions received will NOT go to the RIAA, but will instead be used to defray defense costs. He further states "If money remains beyond that, I am open to a discussion with Charlie, Ray Beckerman, and our supporters (you donated it, after all) as to what to do with the rest of it."
they could have settled beforehand for $3000 or so
That's an urban myth, which I don't believe is true. I don't think he was ever able to settle for less than $5k, and the RIAA kept raising the number from there. They are very vindictive.
IANAL, but the damages amount seems disproportionate to the offense. Does this raise any additional prospect of constitutional appeal for a disproportionate penalty? (Not that the attorney in this case would be capable of mounting such an appeal pro bono...)
Yes, not an appeal at this point, but an attack on the judgment in the district court itself. I expect the judge to rule on that issue shortly. I do not know if she will require further briefing, as the legal issue has already been fully briefed, and the Judge said she would reserve decision upon the matter until such time as a statutory damages award were rendered, which is of course now. Here is the Amicus Curiae brief which I filed, on behalf of the Free Software Foundation, on the subject of the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's statutory damages theory.
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.
they kept offering to settle for a couple thousand dollars
Simply not true. I don't think they were ever willing to take less than $5000, non-negotiable. And then they kept raising the amount, making it impossible for him to settle.
Your argument is non sequitur. The American legal system is not without flaws, but it is not simply about buying justice. The American legal system is the only voice that some destitute people have. The problem with the RIAA cases is that Congress has enacted laws that impose statutory damages for copyright violations. The reason that was done was because it was historically impossible to prove actual damages if your short story was copied without license. It is still sensible for that reason, but in the RIAA cases it is arguably obsolete and capricious. The system of justice is not flawed simply because it is compelled by Congress to obey a statute that is.
I don't really agree with you. It's not just about the statutes, it's also about how litigation in the US is a rich man's game or a game for large corporations, except for certain specific exceptions, copyright not being one of them. The economic imbalance skews the outcomes so that the law is NOT being applied. I wrote an article for the ABA Judges Journal's "equal access to justice" issue, on this very point, entitled "Large Recording Companies vs. The Defenseless : Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigations".
It is a major factor that this defendant could not afford to hire legal counsel. He wound up with pro bono counsel virtually appointed by the Court, counsel who -- as it turned out -- had a private agenda which had nothing to do with simply getting the best result for this client.
I didn't say that the system is totally worthless. I said that the way this case has been handled provides fuel for such an argument. I.e., it has been a disgrace to the American judicial system.
Don't worry about my morale. I don't look over horizons to see whether I'm going to win or lose. I just keep on fighting for what is right. I just do my best, unlike what the "joelfightsback" team did.
If the people that are opposed to the RIAA's egregious behavior give him money for this, isn't this more or less the same thing as donating money to the RIAA?
If the people that are opposed to the RIAA's egregious behavior give him money for this, isn't this more or less the same thing as donating money to the RIAA?No.
I don't know how Louis Nizer could have kept Mr. Tennenbaum from being found liable for copyright violation! Do you? Seriously . . .
Te[...]nenbaum admitted to the copyright violation. A good lawyer can't undo that!
I worked for Louis Nizer for 6 years. Were he handling the case, the RIAA would have won, but probably would have recovered $1.65, or another much smaller sum. The reason is not because of Mr. Nizer's incredible courtroom presence, which was indeed incredible, but because he was very very thorough, and he would have had me or someone like me, who is a solid, grounded, responsible legal researcher, and who is NOT a bullshit artist, doing the research and laying the groundwork. No issues would have been overlooked. Here all of the issues were overlooked.
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.
excuse me. but there is NO other way of putting this. the reason for this shit is precisely american legal system's favoring the rich. got money ? you can outsue everyone even if you are higway bandits like riaa.
i know a lot of you americans will be bullshitting about how good a legal system it is because you people generally dont think a world outside usa-uk-australia axis exists. but, it isnt. actually you are being screwed over because more money means more rights in america. just because you embrace the philosophy with four arms. american dream is full of promises. yet i bet not even 1% of you reading this have 'made' it as to be as rich as any patron of riaa. yet you STILL keep hugging it despite there are people screwing you through it.
The way this case was handled; the way this case has proceeded; and what's resulted so far... all support your criticism.
Yeah. I raised an eyebrow when I saw this in the newspaper. Tenenbaum says, "I'm disappointed, but I'm thankful it wasn't millions. To me it sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy.'"
He's *thankful*??
I've never heard of a defendant who was this much of a douchebag. It makes me wonder if there's some way he could have taken a dive.
Yes I was surprised by that remark, and by others he's made.
The part of me that wants to believe the best in people, will attribute those to exhaustion.
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).
While I don't really in my heart of hearts believe that there was some kind of dastardly collusion like that, if you asked me to put together an argument to that effect I would have an overabundance of source material with which to make my case.
I would go back to early 2008, when Judge Gertner decided that out of the hundreds of RIAA cases over which she's presided, this one -- the one where the defendant actually admitted to having done the file sharing he's accused of -- is the one that was worthy of having pro bono counsel appointed.
Look, commodore64_love, NYCL maintains a fairly high-profile blog which includes a lot of "practice tips" for lawyers defending cases like this. I think it's silly that you're accusing him of being "silent", just because Joel's lawyer didn't feel like using the resources that NYCL is providing.
Thank you for noticing. I don't think the "joelfightsback" team paid as close attention.
I have noticed that NYCL isn't posting/making the front page of Slashdot as much recently
True
but that I believe was because of backlash complaints about the volume of articles he had previously
Not really. It's because I haven't been submitting as many. I just haven't had that many stories come to my attention which I feel are Slashdot-worthy. E.g., Prof. Nesson being denied the right to interpose a defense because he's about 8 months late in pleading it, or Prof. Nesson being denied the right to offer an expert witness because he missed the deadline by 3 months, are not -- in my opinion -- newsworthy events.
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.
Not a bad school, not an astoundingly big name either. If you graduate with honors, you probably know what you're doing.
It is an excellent law school in terms of the quality of the education. It has much less prestige than Harvard Law School, however.
As to 'knowing what you're doing', my experience has been that this correlates neither to what law school one went to, nor to one's grades in law school.
This is the some of the most fucked up shit I've ever read. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole lawsuit defendant and plaintiff was a giant farce by the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
There are 2 RIAA trolls who are 'up each other's a**es' agreeing with each other about how unkind I have been to criticize the work of the defendant's "legal team" in SONY v. Tenenbaum on my blog and on Slashdot. They're not attacking any of the other 25,000 or so Slashdotters who have also criticized the work of defendant's legal team.
Will someone please get them off my back?
Hello, any moderators out there by any chance?
Well like you say, you're an "RIAA Shill".
Interesting that the pro-RIAA people are the ones so 'offended' by my 'inconsiderate' commentary on defendant's lawyers' work.
I thought I'd put in a link to the statement, but I guess I hadn't. Here it is.
Important update: Mr. Tenenbaum has issued a statement changing course, and indicating that the contributions received will NOT go to the RIAA, but will instead be used to defray defense costs. He further states "If money remains beyond that, I am open to a discussion with Charlie, Ray Beckerman, and our supporters (you donated it, after all) as to what to do with the rest of it."
they could have settled beforehand for $3000 or so
That's an urban myth, which I don't believe is true. I don't think he was ever able to settle for less than $5k, and the RIAA kept raising the number from there. They are very vindictive.
IANAL, but the damages amount seems disproportionate to the offense. Does this raise any additional prospect of constitutional appeal for a disproportionate penalty? (Not that the attorney in this case would be capable of mounting such an appeal pro bono...)
Yes, not an appeal at this point, but an attack on the judgment in the district court itself. I expect the judge to rule on that issue shortly. I do not know if she will require further briefing, as the legal issue has already been fully briefed, and the Judge said she would reserve decision upon the matter until such time as a statutory damages award were rendered, which is of course now. Here is the Amicus Curiae brief which I filed, on behalf of the Free Software Foundation, on the subject of the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's statutory damages theory.
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.
It may also tell us that the highly-paid RIAA lawyers are better at jury selection than the people who are representing the little guys
Definitely, and the judge allowed the jury selection process to play right into the RIAA's hands here.
they kept offering to settle for a couple thousand dollars
Simply not true. I don't think they were ever willing to take less than $5000, non-negotiable. And then they kept raising the amount, making it impossible for him to settle.
Your argument is non sequitur. The American legal system is not without flaws, but it is not simply about buying justice. The American legal system is the only voice that some destitute people have. The problem with the RIAA cases is that Congress has enacted laws that impose statutory damages for copyright violations. The reason that was done was because it was historically impossible to prove actual damages if your short story was copied without license. It is still sensible for that reason, but in the RIAA cases it is arguably obsolete and capricious. The system of justice is not flawed simply because it is compelled by Congress to obey a statute that is.
I don't really agree with you. It's not just about the statutes, it's also about how litigation in the US is a rich man's game or a game for large corporations, except for certain specific exceptions, copyright not being one of them. The economic imbalance skews the outcomes so that the law is NOT being applied. I wrote an article for the ABA Judges Journal's "equal access to justice" issue, on this very point, entitled "Large Recording Companies vs. The Defenseless : Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigations".
It is a major factor that this defendant could not afford to hire legal counsel. He wound up with pro bono counsel virtually appointed by the Court, counsel who -- as it turned out -- had a private agenda which had nothing to do with simply getting the best result for this client.
I didn't say that the system is totally worthless. I said that the way this case has been handled provides fuel for such an argument. I.e., it has been a disgrace to the American judicial system.
Don't worry about my morale. I don't look over horizons to see whether I'm going to win or lose. I just keep on fighting for what is right. I just do my best, unlike what the "joelfightsback" team did.
If the people that are opposed to the RIAA's egregious behavior give him money for this, isn't this more or less the same thing as donating money to the RIAA?
No.
It's not "more or less the same thing".
It's exactly the same thing.
If the people that are opposed to the RIAA's egregious behavior give him money for this, isn't this more or less the same thing as donating money to the RIAA?No.
It's not "more or less the same thing".
It's exactly the same thing.
What other arguments did these lawyers miss that a "good lawyer" wouldn't have missed?
I guess you haven't been reading my blog; it's all in there.
I don't know how Louis Nizer could have kept Mr. Tennenbaum from being found liable for copyright violation! Do you? Seriously . . . Te[...]nenbaum admitted to the copyright violation. A good lawyer can't undo that!
I worked for Louis Nizer for 6 years. Were he handling the case, the RIAA would have won, but probably would have recovered $1.65, or another much smaller sum. The reason is not because of Mr. Nizer's incredible courtroom presence, which was indeed incredible, but because he was very very thorough, and he would have had me or someone like me, who is a solid, grounded, responsible legal researcher, and who is NOT a bullshit artist, doing the research and laying the groundwork. No issues would have been overlooked. Here all of the issues were overlooked.
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.
excuse me. but there is NO other way of putting this. the reason for this shit is precisely american legal system's favoring the rich. got money ? you can outsue everyone even if you are higway bandits like riaa. i know a lot of you americans will be bullshitting about how good a legal system it is because you people generally dont think a world outside usa-uk-australia axis exists. but, it isnt. actually you are being screwed over because more money means more rights in america. just because you embrace the philosophy with four arms. american dream is full of promises. yet i bet not even 1% of you reading this have 'made' it as to be as rich as any patron of riaa. yet you STILL keep hugging it despite there are people screwing you through it.
The way this case was handled; the way this case has proceeded; and what's resulted so far... all support your criticism.
Yeah. I raised an eyebrow when I saw this in the newspaper. Tenenbaum says, "I'm disappointed, but I'm thankful it wasn't millions. To me it sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy.'"
He's *thankful*??
I've never heard of a defendant who was this much of a douchebag. It makes me wonder if there's some way he could have taken a dive.
Yes I was surprised by that remark, and by others he's made.
The part of me that wants to believe the best in people, will attribute those to exhaustion.
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).
While I don't really in my heart of hearts believe that there was some kind of dastardly collusion like that, if you asked me to put together an argument to that effect I would have an overabundance of source material with which to make my case.
I would go back to early 2008, when Judge Gertner decided that out of the hundreds of RIAA cases over which she's presided, this one -- the one where the defendant actually admitted to having done the file sharing he's accused of -- is the one that was worthy of having pro bono counsel appointed.
Look, commodore64_love, NYCL maintains a fairly high-profile blog which includes a lot of "practice tips" for lawyers defending cases like this. I think it's silly that you're accusing him of being "silent", just because Joel's lawyer didn't feel like using the resources that NYCL is providing.
Thank you for noticing. I don't think the "joelfightsback" team paid as close attention.
I have noticed that NYCL isn't posting/making the front page of Slashdot as much recently
True
but that I believe was because of backlash complaints about the volume of articles he had previously
Not really. It's because I haven't been submitting as many. I just haven't had that many stories come to my attention which I feel are Slashdot-worthy. E.g., Prof. Nesson being denied the right to interpose a defense because he's about 8 months late in pleading it, or Prof. Nesson being denied the right to offer an expert witness because he missed the deadline by 3 months, are not -- in my opinion -- newsworthy events.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" is not asking "Are you liable"
I guess you were absent the day they were handing out brains.
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?
Not a bad school, not an astoundingly big name either. If you graduate with honors, you probably know what you're doing.
It is an excellent law school in terms of the quality of the education. It has much less prestige than Harvard Law School, however.
As to 'knowing what you're doing', my experience has been that this correlates neither to what law school one went to, nor to one's grades in law school.
This is the some of the most fucked up shit I've ever read. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole lawsuit defendant and plaintiff was a giant farce by the RIAA.
Neither would I.