Scoffs at RIAA’s demands that he disclose details of the “homemade music CD” collection of Joel Tenenbaum, an accused file-sharer, he’s representing in court.
A few weeks ago I mentioned how an accused file-sharers is going on the offensive against the RIAA by noting that Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson filed an amended counterclaim on behalf of defendant Joel Tenenbaum in Sony BMG Music v. Tenenbaum. The counterclaim fires back against for abuse of process across state and federal jurisdictions.
Nesson is challenging both the constitutionality of the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 and the music labels’ use of it against Tenenbaum. He notes that the act is essentially a criminal statute and that therefore defendants are required to have the same protections afforded other criminal statues like legal representation, trial by jury, and due process.
Specifically, he argues that the RIAA is abusing the law “to advance ulterior motives” and that it is simply trying to intimidate individuals rather than seek redress for perceived economic losses.
Now Nesson is illustrating just how inept, backward and idiotic the RIAA is by publishing a string of e-mail correspondence between he and Timothy M Reynolds , who’s representing the record industry in court.
From: Charles Nesson
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM
To: Timothy M Reynolds
Cc: Eve Burton , Joel Tenenbaum, Arthur & Judie Tenenbaum, CyberOne RIAA
hello tim
no, this is not an important issue. this is an issue of immense triviality such as to make a mockery of you in denver and me in cambridge spending our friday morning sending email back and forth to each other about it. there are truly important issues at stake in this litigation but this is not one of them.
From: Timothy M Reynolds
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:34 AM
To: “nesson@gmail.com”
Cc: Eve Burton
Hello Charlie:
Eve forwarded your email to me. I don’t wish to belabor this, but we want to be sure of the status of things so that we can make a decision on whether to move to compel. The testimony thus far has been clear that Joel created and maintained in his music collection a number of homemade music CDs, and that he left some of his collection at 20 Upton Avenue. I am concerned about the narrow scope of Ms. Tenenbaum’s response below (ie., “no CDs in our house”). Please advise as to whether Mr. or Mrs. Tenenbaum have any homemade music CDs in their possession, custody or control (regardless of whether such CDs are “in the house”). If they do not, can you please advise as to what happened to the CDs Joel left? This is an important issue. Thanks very much.
Tim
From: Charles Nesson
To: Eve Burton
Sent: Fri Nov 21 05:37:09 2008
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Tenenbaum
Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena
To: nesson at law.harvard.edu
There are no CDRS in our house that Joel created.
Charles Nesson wrote:
eve burton writes: the question is whether there are any CDRs that Joel created that are in their possession, custody or control? Are there any CDRs in their house that Joel created?
From: Eve Burton
Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena
To: “nesson@law.harvard.edu “
Cc: Timothy M Reynolds , Laurie Rust , Anne Allen
Charlie:
Just to be clear, your email below states that Joel did not burn any CDRs for, or give any CDRs to, Arthur or Judie, but the question is whether there are any CDRs that Joel created that are in their possession, custody or control? Are there any CDRs in their house that Joel created? Can you please clarify. We would like to avoid unnecessary motions practice.
Thanks.
Eve
From: Charles Nesson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:36 PM
To: Eve Burton
Cc: Joel Tenenbaum ; Arthur & Judie Tenenbaum; CyberOne RIAA
Subject: Re: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena
eve:
we claim that your use of process against joel is abusive and improperly in service of the prosecution through civil process of an essentially criminal claim. as such it should stop, at least until the judge had had a chance to rule on our contention.
in any event both judie and arthur stated in their depositions that joel did not burn cds for them or give cds to them. your subpoena calls for them to produce all burned cds from joel they possess. they represent to me they have nothing to produce.
-charlie
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Eve Burton wrote:
Charlie:
Please explain what possible grounds you have to move to quash this subpoena (in this regard, you may want to look at our Motion to Compel the Tova subpoena b/c our arguments on relevance and burden are largely the same and address your likely arguments here as well). Our subpoena is very limited and the CDRs are clearly relevant based on the deposition testimony. You have opposed virtually every bit of discovery we have sought in this case. The arguments you are putting forward are borderline frivolous. At some point we may seek our costs for this vexatious strategy of opposing all discovery.
Eve.
—–Original Message—–
From: Charles Nesson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:47 AM
To: Eve Burton
Cc: CyberOne RIAA ; Joel Tenenbaum ; Arthur & Judie Tenenbaum
Subject: Re: [cyberone-riaa] Motion to Quash – Arthur & Judie Subpoena
we will be filing a motion to quash Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum’s subpoena
Don’t you just love it? Of all the things to be concerned with in the case, like jurisdiction vis a vis civil versus criminal complaints, and constitutionality of seeking reimbursement that is thousands times greater than actual losses, the RIAA wants to know what’s in Joel’s stereo.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- Harvard Prof & Students Fight the RIAA Today
- Harvard Prof Fighting RIAA Back in Court Tomorrow
- Harvard Prof Calls RIAA Lawsuits “Unconstitutional Abuse of Law”
- Harvard Prof Wants to Broadcast RIAA Case on Internet
- Harvard Prof to RIAA: “P2P is Fair Use”
Loading ...
I’d like to know how you can become a ‘Harvard’ law professor while not respecting the convention that a capital letter should start a sentence. The rest of us would be considered semi-literate if we made the same faux pax. In fact I think the publishing of this exchange of emails raises other questions about Mr Nesson’s calibre.
If I were our friend Mr Tenenbaum I should rethink my choice of legal advice.
@Valiant.
Do all of your e-mails follow such grammatical correctness?
@Valiant
an Email with proper grammar and punctuation?
try writing a letter instead.
Emails are not formal when used in the manner above. just like posting on a E-Forum.
Oh and for the record the proper use of your own language would be appreciated were you be taken more seriously.
Where you said “If I were our friend Mr Tenenbaum I should rethink my choice of legal advice. ”
You should have said ” Were I our friend Mr Tenenbaum. I would rethink my choice of legal advice”