Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Almighty Buck News

Nesson & Camara Increase Attack Against RIAA 193

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the bad-business-models dept.
eldavojohn writes "We talked about Charlie Nesson of Harvard Law School before, and it may not have been known to you, but he is backing former student and Jammie Thomas' new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara. Ars is reporting that Nesson is upping the charges against the RIAA. Not only is file-sharing fair use, but the $100,000,000 the RIAA has collected through fear is due back to those wrongly accused. He's also increasing the number of fronts he's fighting. On Camara's website, he indicates that in another case, Brittany English (pro bono), they 'are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these — 150,000:1 — are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nesson & Camara Increase Attack Against RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • by swschrad (312009) on Friday May 22, 2009 @05:03PM (#28059877) Homepage Journal

    skip the three steps, Vatican, and buy this man a gold chair and cape!

  • Go, Kiwi, Go! (Score:5, Informative)

    by mangu (126918) on Friday May 22, 2009 @05:06PM (#28059909)

    After reading on Slashdot about this guy and reading more on the internet, I've become his fan. I wish him well.

    • by erroneus (253617)

      Do you turn your back on NYCL so quickly just because some real-life Doogey Houser thinks he can take on an establishment that has been bought and paid for? Not only will there be high resistance from the courts, there will be heavy resistance from the DoJ and possibly even the Obama administration. These media people have a lot of favors they can call in.

      • Nonsense! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Weaselmancer (533834) on Friday May 22, 2009 @06:23PM (#28060639)

        Do you turn your back on NYCL so quickly

        Who says we have to have just one hero? All we've done here is to go from Superman to The Justice League.

        So, more heroes please! Keep 'em coming!

      • by rs79 (71822)

        "Do you turn your back on NYCL so quickly just because some real-life Doogey Houser thinks he can take on an establishment that has been bought and paid for?"

        I know Charles Neeson. Comparing him to Doogey Houser indicates you don't know a thing about him. He's educated some of the finest legal minds day, off the top of my head: Larry Lessig, Jon Zittrain and Ben Edelman.

        There's a reason the RIAA never moved against Harvard students. This is the one battle they didn't want and they may be assholes but they

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Charlie Nesson has lost his mind. I support the movement, but claiming that file sharing is protected under "fair use" is a horrible legal argument..
      • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Friday May 22, 2009 @06:25PM (#28060653)

        This entire fiasco is full of horrible legal arguments. John Doe bulk filesuits, extortion, racketeering, the notion that you are your IP, settlement letters before suit is filed...you name it.

        Having it close on a horrible argument would be poetic at this point.

      • Re:Go, Kiwi, Go! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BCW2 (168187) on Friday May 22, 2009 @06:31PM (#28060731) Journal
        He is just striking back "in kind". His claim is no more ridiculous than any and all claims made by the RIAA.

        Imagine chest pains in certain board rooms at the thought that this could be ruled on against them. Just the thought, kind of like how their victims have felt.
      • Re:Go, Kiwi, Go! (Score:5, Informative)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray.beckermanlegal@com> on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:48PM (#28061475) Homepage Journal

        I support the movement, but claiming that file sharing is protected under "fair use" is a horrible legal argument.

        Actually the way you, and perhaps they, have expressed the issue is overly simplistic. "File sharing" is a broad term. There are many factual scenarios under its penumbra. Some of those scenarios would constitute fair use, some would not, and some would fall into a gray area to which we do not know the answer. There has been NO litigation of the "fair use" defense in the RIAA v. Individual cases, except for a single 2003 case in which the only question was whether running off unauthorized copies of unauthorized copies on a p2p file sharing network, and placing those in permanent hard copies on the defendant's computer, was a "fair use". The Court held that it was not. But there are many other possible fact patterns, none of which have presented themselves yet in a litigation context.

        Meanwhile the constitutionality defense -- that the RIAA's theory of statutory damages fails to pass constitutional muster under the Due Process Clause due to the disproportionality to actual damages -- is certain to succeed, in my professional opinion, once the issue ripens.

      • Filesharing is partially PROVEN legal in holland. Downloading is 100% absolutly legal and judges have ruled on this multiple times.

        So, it is only a horrible legal argument in countries where the law is owned by the copyright industry.

        And please note, human civilization has DEPENDED on copyright "violations" for millenia. Rossetta stone anyone? Copied all over. How did you think books were made before the printing press? Hand copied over the centuries without any notion of paying the author. Modern copyrig

    • I've never BEEN a fan - of anyone, except maybe myself, and my sons. I'm reconsidering my stance on the stupidity of ever being a fan..........

  • I doubt that'll work (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    On Camara's website, he indicates that in another case, Brittany English (pro bono), they 'are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these â" 150,000:1 â" are unconstitutional

    When it comes to the courts, including the Supreme Court, it seems that corporations' power compared to people are allowed to be practically infinite so long as they're not literally listed as infinite. See: extensions of copyright, corporate personhood.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

      Actually, last year Nesson had the opportunity to shut the copyright nonsense down and dropped the ball. He basically refused to argue the practical merits of the case, sticking only to principles. The SCOTUS was tossing him softballs to allow him to show, basically, that the argument he wanted to argue was important enough that they should decide the constitutionality of it.

      What he failed to consider was that, despite granting him the hearing (which was an extreme longshot in itself), and practically beg

  • by Lead Butthead (321013) on Friday May 22, 2009 @05:14PM (#28059977) Journal

    Make sure their lawyers are disbarred too.

  • ...at once, when the odds were stacked against him, and remember well what happened to him.

    • Remember who else fought on multiple fronts
      ...at once, when the odds were stacked against him, and remember well what happened to him.

      Is this a subtle attempt to Godwin the thread?

  • I hope he wins in every possible way.

    Kudos & good luck.

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton

Working...