RIAA Asks For Sanctions Against Charles Nesson In Tenenbaum Suit

from the getting-nasty dept

I think it would be an understatement to say that the RIAA is rather unhappy with Charles Nesson and his team of folks from Harvard Law, challenging them on the constitutionality of the RIAA's "sue everyone" strategy. Recently, they've been battling over the right to broadcast the courtroom proceedings, and now the RIAA is asking for monetary sanctions against Nesson, claiming he violated certain procedural rules. The RIAA is likely seeking sanctions under section 11, which is used against lawyers who file lawsuits that are "unreasonable." In other words, this is starting to get personal.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 12:57pm

    ...challenging them on the constitutionality of the RIAA's "sue everyone" strategy.

    This is simply wrong. The defendant is not challenging the constitutionality of anything the plaintiff(s) has/have done. The defendant is trying to create an issue for appeal that a specific portion of the Copyright Act is problematic, and specifically the section dealing with in lieu damages. This has nothing to do with what the plaintiff(s) has/have been doing by the filing of lawsuits against alleged infringers of copyrights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    You never know, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:00pm

    Leave it to the idots at the RIAA, LOL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    TDR, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:10pm

    This only shows how desperate they're getting, heh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Matt, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:12pm

    You missed half the story

    Although the #1 AC is incorrect,

    Nesson is going the reverse with rule 37(b) sanctions, aka discovery sanctions for the RIAA trying to dance their way out of this.

    Rule 37b category: Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions.

    The one they went again for him was 11, for claims that he is trying to harass/delay the case.

    Guess which one is easier to argue? Rule 37b. Sanctions for 11 are pretty rare from every legal proceeding I've followed. You really have to push to get sanctions under 11.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:17pm

    Sounds like their strategy

    So, they don't want the proceedings broadcast, and in order to stop it, they're throwing out every legal suit they can to see what sticks that might stop it.

    Although, when you fall from attacking the issue down to attacking the person (the old ad hominem), it's usually a sign that you've lost the debate...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anthony Cooper, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:18pm

    If he ends up getting sanctioned...

    I'd contribute to that fund! Hooray for Nesson!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:19pm

    BTW, the request for sanctions against the defendant is based on the dictates of the District Court's local rules and Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Prodecedure, and is contained in the plaintiff's motion opposing the defendant's motion to compell the taking of an individual's deposition. Parties are entitled to receive fair notice of proposed discovery (in this case the deposition), and it is alleged that the defendant's have failed to comply with this very basic entitlement specified in the governing rules of civil procedure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Dan J., Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Simply wrong

    Uh, here's a direct quote:

    "This Court should exercise its inherent power to allow background image redress to Joel Tenenbaum for Plaintiffs' abuse of law and federal civil court process. As detailed throughout this brief, Plaintiffs are using any and all available avenues of federal process to pursue grossly disproportionate -- and unconstitutional -- punitive damages in the name of making an example of him to an entire generation of students. The case at hand warrants the use of inherent federal power not just because of what Plaintiffs are doing to Joel Tenenbaum in this Court, but because of the manner in which Plaintiffs are abusing the federal courts all across the country. Plaintiffs have pursued over 30,000 individuals in the same way they have pursued Joel.... For these 30,000 individuals, Plaintiffs have wielded federal process as a bludgeon, threatening legal action to such an extent that settlement remains the only viable option. Joel Tenenbaum is unique in his insistence, in the face of it all, on having his day in court. The federal courts have an inherent interest in deciding whether they will continue being used as the bludgeon in RIAA's campaign of sacrificing individuals in this way."

    Sure sounds like they're challenging the actions of the plaintiff to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    K, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:24pm

    Video is a court document

    Video is a court document, just in video form. The Court system is a public system and documents of that system are also public. The RIAA has the right to stream it in its entirety if they want, everyone ALSO has that same right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:26pm

    Re: You missed half the story

    "Although the #1 AC is incorrect..."

    Have you read various submissions to the court? Defendant is pursuing a path of argument that the in lieu damages provision of the Lanham Act should be treated as a quai-criminal statute, to which the rights of criminal defendants should pertain.

    As for the plaintiff's request for sanctions, they are based on Rule 37, and not Rule 11.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Simply wrong

    These are simply arguments of counsel that read nice, but are irrelevant to the legal issue being pressed.

    In a copyright infringement action a rights holder is permitted to pursue either actual damages or statutory (in lieu) damages. This has been the law for decades. The defendant is challenging the statutory damages portion of the Lanham Act.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    ehrichweiss, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Video is a court document

    What?!?!? The RIAA doesn't want everyone else to have the same rights they have enjoyed?!?!? I simply cannot believe it.

    /sarcasm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 2:03pm

    May the RIAA rot in hell

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    AnonymousCoward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 2:56pm

    Video rights

    I am sure they would be ok with the video if they managed to get the rights on it and cash on it :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    tony, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 3:01pm

    "...against lawyers who file lawsuits that are 'unreasonable.'..."

    Hypocrites! They'd better be careful of what they wish.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Perry Masonary, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 5:04pm

    This is an interesting case

    I would love to watch these proceedings.
    Why would the RIAA not want it to be available for all to see? Maybe because they know it is not going to go well for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 5:59pm

    Re: Video is a court document

    I just want to take the court transcript and reenact it with puppets or animations on you tube. That should really make it easy to embarrass the RIAA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2009 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Re: Video is a court document

    puppets - that would be appropriate

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    aikanae, Jan 24th, 2009 @ 1:38am

    you'd get sued for the video

    Imagine being sued for copyrights of reenacting a copyright trial of them suing someone else for copyrights.

    Maybe the RIAA are afraid they have no reflections.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2009 @ 9:20am

    I'm gonna go sell some of my MP3s and donate the proceeds to Nesson!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    weebit, Jan 24th, 2009 @ 12:36pm

    RIAA

    If the case gets televised then the public has a good court case to work with to see just how the RIAA pulled the suit off in the first place. The RIAA is all about secrecy. They don't want the public having access to past cases, because to have this info increases the likelihood that the RIAA would loose. Keep the public in the dark, and they have no clue what hit them.

    If it does get televised, I see the RIAA deliberatly loosing the case, just so that the public has nothing to work with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    RIAA is stupid, Jan 26th, 2009 @ 10:01am

    Risk reward function.

    This is hilarious. The RIAA going to lose much more from this trial (money, reputation, etc.) than whatever they could have gained if all the defendants payed the 5x maximum they were sued for.

    Talk about not understanding a simple risk vs. reward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Jan 26th, 2009 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Risk reward function.

    Reputation? I think that was pretty well gone long ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 28th, 2009 @ 7:24pm

    Re: to ac

    Are you looking for a job with RIAA?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    toocoool, Jan 28th, 2009 @ 7:32pm

    RIAA vs Tenenbaum

    RIAA "Sucks". Do the actual artist get any of the monies from the settlements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This