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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: charles neeson, constitutionality, joel tenenbaum, lawsuits, sanctions
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply wrong
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simply wrong
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed half the story
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You missed half the story
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like their strategy
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he ends up getting sanctioned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to ac
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video is a court document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video is a court document
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video is a court document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Video is a court document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrites! They'd better be careful of what they wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an interesting case
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you'd get sued for the video
Maybe the RIAA are afraid they have no reflections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
If it does get televised, I see the RIAA deliberatly loosing the case, just so that the public has nothing to work with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Risk reward function.
Talk about not understanding a simple risk vs. reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Risk reward function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA vs Tenenbaum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]