RIAA Threatens Harvard Law Prof With Sanctions 333
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Unhappy with Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson's motion to compel the deposition of the RIAA's head 'Enforcer', Matthew J. Oppenheim, in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA threatened the good professor with sanctions (PDF) if he declined to withdraw his motion. Then the next day they filed papers opposing the motion, and indeed asked the Court to award monetary sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
Who is this guy, & why does he not want to spe (Score:5, Insightful)
From the first link: 'Mr. Oppenheim is the person who has been identified by the RIAA lawyers sometimes as the "client", sometimes as the "industry representative", and sometimes as the "client representative", and on at least one occasion as "the only person who had settlement authority" for the RIAA members. He claims to be associated with an entity called "The Oppenheim Group", and has acted as attorney of record for the record companies in several proceedings in Washington, D.C.'
So, if he represents the interests of the artists, (ahem), why is he - or his legal team, taking such extraordinary steps to avoid testifying?
You don't get it, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about the law. It's about money! Stop interfering with our money-making!
Capitalism at it's best. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have money SO, you can hire good lawyers SO, you can prolong the process making the necessary appeals to higher courts for a long long time
Nothing new to see here, move along.
Re:modern version of sending pictures (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this constitute barratry? Whether you agree with the case or not, the defendant has a right to representation. The only way that can be atacked is by plaintiffs representative in court. That's what they're for. That's how the system is designed to work.
But any "off field" attempts to defeat the defence should be considered as contempt of court. What next, slashing his tires so he can't get to the court house?
Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, IANAL, but it kinda sounds illogical. When you can't present your case, how can you have one? Isn't that like saying "I sue you, but I won't tell you why, I only want you to be convicted and forced to pay me a sum that springs from my imagination"?
Thinking about it again... that's pretty much how they do it, ain't it?
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
going one step up, er... down, money is about control.
That explains why RIAA heads seem not to care if their actions get them hated or boycotted. Their battle is making people accept Intellectual Property being enforced. Is it a primary objective or just a way to terrorize people and prevent them for doing other things, like, you know, looking at what other powerful people do to society, dunno.
Those who collected enough power to be able to influence how much money is printed have no interest in having more or less money. They want money to have maximum control over as much people as possible. This effort shaped the history of the latest centuries, somebody call it conspiracy, i call it a natural outcome of control freaks interacting with other people.
Wasting resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to (Score:5, Insightful)
Even cooler is that you:
- don't have to worry about your kid scratching the DVD and making it unplayable
- can easily skip the fscking "no skip" crap that every DVD seems to have
- can FIND the movie when you want to watch it
In almost every way, the ripped copy of the DVD is better than the physical disc
Re:When the client is a lawyer ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Privilege extends to legal work alone. If someone happens to be a properly licensed attorney and you hire them to be your accountant, they can still be called on in court to testify as to accounting things. Using a lawyer for contractor management (even if the contractors are lawyers) is *not* legal work, and thus isn't related to priviledge. The only "magic" that appears is when you are willing to lie and say things are legal work when they are not.
Dripping with Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Their battle is to enforce (a certain subsection of) the law until it doesn't need to be enforced. Just like any honest law enforcement agency you care to name. That's no conspiracy; anyone in a functioning democracy can read up about their responsibilities regarding IP.
However, just like most dishonest law enforcement agencies, they are not above threatening people who aren't doing anything wrong.
There really isn't much more to read into it than that.
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Their battle is making people accept Intellectual Property being enforced.
Umm, I'm all for certain types of IP being enforced (Copyright: good. Trademark: good. Software patents: terrible). You can be OK with copyright and still find their actions despicable.
Re:Legal language and strength of case (Score:3, Insightful)
The real beauty of the letter is that Private Eye didn't tell them to fuck off, they just asked for information. The information they asked for made it abundantly clear the intent but didn't voice the intent or bind them to any course of action.
I'm not a lawyer, but I appreciate a well crafted argument. This one speaks volumes without actually saying anything.
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright eventually runs out
You must be old here.
Re:Simple ? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what they are actually doing is some kind of legal suicide attack?
What they've been doing the past 5 1/2 years has been a legal suicide attack.
The only survivors are their law firms.
Re:Dripping with Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
However, they also lobby to have certain subsections of the law created or modified...
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:4, Insightful)
If only. That's what their battle should have been. When they got super-sloppy with their investigative techniques and started suing innocent people, the battle changed. Nobody needs berserkers who don't even know who their enemies are. I bet if RIAA had stuck to suing copyright infringers, none of us would have ever heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer. Nobody would give a damn about RIAA and we would have moved on to fighting the much more evil and freedom-threatening MPAA.
Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge. (Score:3, Insightful)
You might have a better argument with knowledge. But no, you do not have a fundamental right to be entertained at someone else's expense. Sorry.
And you would know. You're fairly well traversed in the area of spin.
Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, since Courtney got sober, I'm waiting for her to finish detoxing so we can see just what kind of artist she really is. Should only take a couple more years...
Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like how the RIAA/MPAA and their paid congressmen have stolen countless millions of dollars' worth of content from the public domain through continued retroactive copyright extensions?
Re:Full Story? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's rather strange - do they think the judge in the case has no knowledge of proper procedure? Or is it a simple delaying tactic? In how many different ways can Oppenheim claim to be affiliated with the lawsuits without revealing his actual role in the litigation campaign?
By the way, thanks for bringing the information to light - we all have to work for a living, but this stuff is too interesting to ignore!
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:2, Insightful)
> The idea of "intellectual property" is unconstitutional and unAmerican. Please stop using the term.
That's why I prefer the term "Imaginary Property", because "Intellectual Property Rights" are neither "Property" nor "Rights", but all this has been hashed before [slashdot.org]
Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. Anyone who wants to rip discs to a different format is a warezie. That's logic if ever I saw it. Sir, you could out-debate a horse!
2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it and do not use the product. If you like the product that much then use it how they asked you to use it.
I'm actually not sure what you think you're trying to say here. Modifying the movie would require a copy on your hard disk, and hard disks don't HAVE a TOC! (In fact, on newer recordable media, ATIP/PMA is arguably the correct term anyhow.) You might, of course, mean Terms of Use, or something, in which case I'd suggest you go fuck yourself, because nobody signs anything when they buy a movie, and it's fascist assumptions such as 'corporations can bind us to whatever we want without our recourse' which get society broadly raped over time. You're a REALLY sharp one, aren't you?
I don't know why these issues are so hard to understand. Don't steal, and don't violate their TOC. If you think the movie sucks and is not wtflol worth the money then don't buy it, don't watch it. Wait for it to come out on TV and you can have it for free (not really since there is advertising) or borrow the movie from a friend. There are plenty of ways to watch a movie/hear a tune which doesn't require you to steal it or modify the DVD.
So, while you're against warez (that much of a consistent position was at least present in your ramblings, remind me to tip your speechwriter!), you have no problem with people borrowing discs off their friends. How, exactly, is this any different? (other than the ENTIRELY LEGAL AND NOT AT ALL PRAGMATIC argument about the number of copies in existence, and the desire for copyright law originally to make non-tangible goods resemble tangible ones).
There are cogent arguments for not infringing peoples' copyrights. You, sir, have made none of them.
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you aren't rabid and foaming at the mouth, and try to get at the deeper issue, the immediate thought is "troll". Not the intelligent, "Talmudic" discussion NewYorkCountryLawyer alluded to.
You may not be "rabid and foaming at the mouth" but your quiet, temperate expression of your point of view nevertheless fails to stand up to scrutiny. For example you say,
The meat of these lawsuits are over blatant copyright infringement. If there wasn't massive file sharing going on, there wouldn't be these lawsuits. I'm not defending all of the actions of RIAA and the people they represent, but the basic question is the same: Can they defend themselves against illegal sharing of music or not?
1. You're engaging in the "where there's smoke there's fire" fallacy. "If they sued someone, they must have a good reason for it." Well that's bunk. (a) Their "methods" are frought with inaccuracy. My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing. (b) They have no proof that anyone did any downloading. (c) They have no proof that anyone committed a "distribution" under the Copyright Act. But they sue anyway.
2. You're assuming that there's "meat" in the RIAA cases, when there is not.
3. You're assuming that where file sharing has taken place, the file sharing amounted to a copyright infringement.
4. You're assuming that every time there has been a copyright infringement, there needs to be a lawsuit.
5. You're assuming that a damages theory which seeks from 2300 to 450,000 times the actual damage sustained is appropriate.
6. You're assuming that damages should be awarded based on distribution when there is no EVIDENCE of distribution.
Your arguments are as illogical as those the RIAA lawyers advance, and are similar or identical to those the RIAA lawyers advance.
Which is why a knowledgeable reader who has read the litigation documents and judicial decisions in some of these cases would conclude that your argument is far from "Talmudic". I've been privileged to have participated in Talmudic arguments. When I use the term I mean an argument based on principle and law and sincerity, struggling to determine what is right and most consistent with the law, not one based on expediency or smooth talk not founded on substance attempting to win something.
Your means of expression may be quiet, but the lack of logic in your statements strikes a jarring note.