Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Your Rights Online News

Tenenbaum Lawyers Now Passing the Hat 388

Posted by timothy
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tenenbaum Lawyers Now Passing the Hat

Comments Filter:
  • I have a question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_eX9 (800448) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:04AM (#28914347) Homepage
    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?
    • by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:07AM (#28914367) Journal

      Well if you could do better, go try :)

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @06:25AM (#28915261) Journal

        Maybe the guy who is suing Amazon for damages will win a couple thusand dollars, and then he can donate that money to pay-off RIAA. That would be perfect symmetry - one jackass corporation paying-off another jackass corperation.

        Sometimes I think we are mere ants walking in the midst of giants.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          P.S.

          I find it interesting that recordingindustryvspeople.com advises to donate money to ongoing trials, not Tennenbaum. That does make more sense if your goal is to defeat the MAFIAA. Although if I'm going to be spending money, then I'd rather just use it to buy the songs legally, which makes the whole issue moot.

    • Re:I have a question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:22AM (#28914421) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by number11 (129686) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:40AM (#28914493)

        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.

        • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:45AM (#28914513) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Wouldn't the defendant have been able to refuse to answer, or at least raise concerns, regarding that sort of questioning as well?
            • by number11 (129686) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @03:46AM (#28914721)

              Wouldn't the defendant have been able to refuse to answer, or at least raise concerns, regarding that sort of questioning as well?

              Of course. But you can't really fault the defendant for not understanding how suicidal saying "yes" was going to be, he's not a lawyer.

              • Re:I have a question (Score:4, Interesting)

                by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @05:16AM (#28914999) Journal

                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.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  (a) The whole "life sentence" concept isn't valid. By that reasoning, poor people should just commit massive financial damages against people, because they wouldn't be subject to paying those damages.
                  (b) He's going to just declare bankruptcy anyway, so it's rather silly as an aside.
                  (c) Separately, his lawyers appear to be grossly unable to handle the case; their "fair use" defense was beyond laughable, and they failed to preserve the easiest possible appeal (which would have, at least, probably allowed
                  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @09:34PM (#28921729) Journal

                    >>>(a) The whole "life sentence" concept isn't valid. By that reasoning, poor people should just commit massive financial damages against people, because they wouldn't be subject to paying those damages.
                    >>>

                    Damages you incur yourself like setting-fire to a neighbor's car (and later must pay back) is not the same as a legislative fine of $150,000 per song. That's Congress issuing punishment, and as such is limited by the Constitution. It's akin to telling someone they owe $150,000 for every mile over the speed limit, and IMHO should be considered "cruel and unusual".

              • So he knows what to say to pretty much every question the other side is going to ask. The defendant shouldn't be thinking, he should just be repeating whatever pat answers his lawyer has worked with him to be the "proper" answer. (I'm not saying perjury but you can prep people to say stuff that wouldn't be that damaging while not actually lying.)
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Tenenbaum would have been wise to remember a scene from Miracle on 34th Street. The prosecutor asks Kris Kringle where he resides and he responds "That's what this hearing will determine." That should have been his answer to the question in the first place.

          • by cliffski (65094) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @04:33AM (#28914873) Homepage

            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.

            • Re:I have a question (Score:5, Informative)

              by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @05:12AM (#28914971) Journal

              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.

              • Re:I have a question (Score:4, Informative)

                by FunWithKnives (775464) <ParadoxPerfect@t ... t ['ris' in gap]> on Sunday August 02, 2009 @07:47AM (#28915637) Journal
                ... the judge is the trier of facts ...

                This may be a bit pedantic, but in a jury trial such as this the judge is the trier of law and the jury is the trier of fact. If this was a bench trial however, you'd be correct - the judge would try both fact and law.
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by NormalVisual (565491)
                  ...in a jury trial such as this the judge is the trier of law and the jury is the trier of fact.

                  Well, the judges would have you think that.

                  "In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, th
            • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @05:19AM (#28915013) Journal

              >>>This wasn't a single track, he had shared hundreds of songs over a long period.

              30 songs. The rest is conjectural and not proven, and therefore not relevant to this case.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Daengbo (523424)

              The guy made offers twice to give everything he had to the RIAA. He even mailed them over $5000. They returned his check.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by westlake (615356)

          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!"

          In which case, the judge simply asks the attorney to rephrase his question or withdraw it.

          It's a "harmless error." Changes nothing.

          By that time Tennebaum had buried his defense six feet under and paved it over with cement.

          Instead, over and over, Tenenbau

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by MaskedSlacker (911878)

            There has to be more to this--if that's how the testimony went then this had to be intentional. No defense attorney would just let all that go through.

            Wasn't there a story some weeks ago about how the attorneys in this case wanted to invalidate the law on appeal anyway?

      • by pieterh (196118) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @03:07AM (#28914599) Homepage

        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.

        • by tsa (15680)

          Why would the RIAA need a positive public opinion? Record companies have a monopoly on the music they sell. They are united in the RIAA. If you buy music, you pay the RIAA to be able to conduct these ridiculous lawsuits, wether you want it or not.

        • Re:I have a question (Score:5, Interesting)

          by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Sunday August 02, 2009 @03:21AM (#28914653) Homepage Journal

          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?

        • by westlake (615356) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @04:16AM (#28914825)

          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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by cetialphav (246516)

            That ought to tell you something.

            Yes, it tells us that copyright is taking pretty seriously by most people. It tells us that you are highly unlikely to find a jury that is sympathetic to the infringment of the rights of others. It tells us that no matter how despicable the RIAA may be, they are still legally correct. It tells us that the fantasy legal arguments often waved about on Slashdot are fantasies that hold no weight in a courtroom.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by idlemachine (732136)

              Yes, it tells us that copyright is taking pretty seriously by most people.

              Yes, but so is Jesus. Popularity doesn't make IP any less of a fictitious belief.

      • by MarkvW (1037596) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @04:18AM (#28914833)

        I don't know how Louis Nizer could have kept Mr. Tennenbaum from being found liable for copyright violation! Do you? Seriously . . .
        Tennenbaum admitted to the copyright violation. A good lawyer can't undo that!

        A good lawyer can advocate for mercy (like Clarence Darrow did for Leopold and Loeb), but it's gotta be hard when your client gets the RIAA warning letter and continues with his merry downloading or when your client is believed by the jury to be flat-out lying his/her ass off.

        Sorry, but I don't get your "a good lawyer would have made a difference" point. I think that kind of rhetoric has the unfortunate effect of jacking up the Slashdot crowd into believing that there is a real chance of beating these copyright cases (hand-picked by the RIAA to go to trial) on the merits with the law as it stands now.

        Your statement regarding an "impervious record for an appeal" suggests that there is a sure-fire winner buried somewhere in the case, but that only a "good lawyer" can preserve it so that the appeals court will ultimately save the day. The only meaningful appellate argument that I can see centers around the extreme punishment inflicted in these two cases. I'm unwilling to conclude, based on the record I've seen, that the lawyers have screwed THAT up. I expect that the Courts of Appeals will ultimately decide whether or not that argument has merit.

        What other arguments did these lawyers miss that a "good lawyer" wouldn't have missed? None that would be outcome-determinative, as far as I can see.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          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 overl

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          What other arguments did these lawyers miss that a "good lawyer" wouldn't have missed?

          I guess you haven't been reading my blog [blogspot.com]; it's all in there.

    • by siloko (1133863)

      How has everything gone so completely wrong?

      In a way that's quite reassuring - if everything had gone smoothly AND the judgement remained as it is then I would start thinking of show trials and 1984 - at least with this level of incompetence you know there's no global conspiracy - just stupid people wrapped up in their own theories of 'right'.

    • These sorts of suits aren't about who's right and wrong anymore (or if it's even willful or not)... it's just a contest between idiots where each tries NOT to out-idiot the other. In this case the RIAA actually didn't out-idiot the defendant or his lawyers (I use that term loosely). The rest of the fiasco is merely the luck of the draw. Most judges are old enough to remember the invention of radio (I swear they feed off the blood of virgins to stay alive), so asking them to apply laws to a moving target
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MarkvW (1037596)

      The people of the USA elected representatives who passed these stupid laws. It's not the "RIAA lawyers, the defendants and their representation, the judges, the juries . . .." It's the American People who don't give enough of a damn to participate in government and save us from the stooges of the moneyed interests.

      The underlying problem is the draconian punishments imposed by the copyright law. The outcome of these stupid trials are foreordained by the law.

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @05:31AM (#28915061) Journal

        >>> 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.

        • by cetialphav (246516) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @11:15AM (#28917157)

          Oh please, this has nothing to do with lobbyists having more power that the people. The voters clearly do not care about this issue. During this last presidential election process, did anyone at any campaign event or town hall ever ask about eliminating or reducing the penalties for copyright infringement? No. People just do see this as a problem.

          If you are able to wake up the voters and get them to care about this, then all the lobbying in the world won't help the RIAA. People just don't appreciate how responsive congressmen can actually be when the electorate gets stirred up about something. The voice of the people isn't being drowned out because there is not even a squeak coming out of their voice on this issue.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by st0rmshad0w (412661)

          Well, the problem is multifold. Part of it is that people who scream rant and rave about "keeping the government out of Medicare" without the mental ability to understand that it is a Federal program (or any one of hundreds of other examples, that's just the one making my brain bleed right now) have the exact same voting value as someone who researches issues and educates themselves on the candidates. Another part of the problem is that law has become too much of its own realm, and needs to be destroyed and

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CAIMLAS (41445)

      Two words: public education. (The fact that you likely understand that statement is likely partially indicative of the total hold popular entertainment has had upon our minds - and the dearth of a literary backing to our psyche.)

      The sad fact is that since shortly after (during?) World War II, popular culture (Elvis, John Wayne, the Beatles, etc.) has been the prevailing form of culturing we've received as a society. Yes, some of it's good: intelligently performed, produced, and sometimes educational to boot

    • by denzacar (181829) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @05:16AM (#28914997) Journal

      Can we have a list of names of the people on "the legal team" for the defendant?

      From what we've seen it appears to that it may be prudent to avoid their legal counsel in the future.
      You know... the way you might want to avoid a leper colony of HIV positive fans with gonorrhea who also happen to have both avian and swine flu.

  • by linzeal (197905) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:08AM (#28914373) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02, 2009 @06:00AM (#28915179)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by moxley (895517)

        That is quite insightful..

        To your astute political analysis, I add the following snippet of pop culture: Don't forget what Eastern Europe has done for modern porn; if not for Eastern Europe you'd all be watching the same tired women from the San Fernando Valley.

  • From the firehose:

    it's called handling the case competently, apparently they don't teach that at Harvard law school

    • Where did NYCL get his law degree? I would like to know where these "good" law schools are in America.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mpoulton (689851)

        Where did NYCL get his law degree? I would like to know where these "good" law schools are in America.

        They're everywhere. It's not the school that matters so much, it's the lawyer. The top third in the class from any law school will be very smart, very sharp thinkers, and excellent game players. The bottom third in the class will not know how to think like a lawyer, will not have a solid grasp of the fundamentals, and will be easily outmaneuvered by opposing counsel. The quality of the students in the middle will vary, as will the capability of the top students when matched against best from other inst

  • by Boogaroo (604901) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:11AM (#28914381) Homepage

    Instead of pushing for a reasonable fine, they expect sympathy from the public?
    I'm afraid they're getting neither in this case.

    • indeed. Other than that, to anyone [including myself] who knows about the case and either sympathises with the defendant or opposes the RIAA, the idea of actually giving the RIAA/Sony thieves anything is an appalling thought.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sumdumass (711423)

      Actually, they were pushing for a reasonable fine. That's the part where the incompetency comes in.

      The claim all along was that the fines were excessive, unconstitutional, and that he had fair use. When the judge who is the trier of facts, instead decided to play prosecutor and advocate for the plaintiff and ask the misleading question of "are you liable", the answer was too complicated for a yes or no but when he said yes, all of the rest of his claims were ignored.

      The judge should not have been able to as

  • by mr exploiter (1452969) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:20AM (#28914415)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by siloko (1133863)

      Be a man, declare bankruptcy

      The world's gone wierd again - where's my urban dictionary!?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tacarat (696339)
      If bankruptcy is declared will he be off the hook for the defense lawyer fees? It may be an effort to pay that bill with free "sympathy money" from the community so that their fees can still be met. Maybe the defense team figures he can afford either/or, but not both bills at the end of this.
  • by davmoo (63521) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:36AM (#28914471)

    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".

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @03:53AM (#28914749)

      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.

    • But literally millions of people are guilty of this so-called "offence". At some point you have to challenge this insane law, although one could argue whether in front of a judge and jury is the right place to do it.

  • $20 is too much (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mistlefoot (636417) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @02:38AM (#28914483)
    $20 is too much for a CD of sub par music. Now you want me to pay the same people who already rip me off, and get nothing?

    You want people to donate $600,000 to the RIAA?

    Is this from the Onion?
  • How can one not suspect that the defense was bought off by the RIAA? I can't conceive of a team of lawyers who could be so utterly incompetent by accident.

    • by jpmorgan (517966)
      You can blame his defense if you want, but he sabotaged his own case when he said in court that the RIAA's lawyers were 100% correct.
  • They pick and chose pretty carefully who they are gonna sue in order to gain the most publicity and spread FUD amongst the peons. And it seems to be working out just fine for them too.
  • IANAL so I was wondering does this set up a precedence that the RIAA can refer to when going after someone else? Is there anyone there who can say 'IAAL' who knows the answer to this?

    Or are they dealt with on a case by case basis?

  • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @06:26AM (#28915265) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • I have to wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Girtych (1345935) on Sunday August 02, 2009 @07:14AM (#28915451)
    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).
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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 hav

  • I thought I'd put in a link to the statement, but I guess I hadn't. Here [blogspot.com] it is.
  • 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?

"Call immediately. Time is running out. We both need to do something monstrous before we die." -- Message from Ralph Steadman to Hunter Thompson

Working...