Daily Archive for Thursday, June 11th, 2009

debbie rosenbaum – why do i record?

file-cabinets4file-drawer-close-upfile-drawer

From: Debbie Rosenbaum
Junw 11, 2009 at 9:25 AM
To: nesson

you’re being portrayed as an extremist nut-job in the media for all your recording stuff.

one idea: maybe you can blog about *why* you like to record things.

is it because it gives you a different level of understanding when reflecting on a situation?
is it because you like to share your life with the world?

what is the impetus for your passion for recording? if you can help the public *understand*, maybe you’ll elicit more sympathy for your efforts.

———-
From: Charles Nesson
i’d rather demonstrate the value of it by continuing to audio blog the development of the case, but if someone curious was to interview me i’d be happy to explain. how about you first
:<)

———-
From: Debbie Rosenbaum
i was thinking you could email me your explanation and then post it to your blog. =)

———-
From: Charles Nesson
because if you don’t record you have nothing to post that the public can listen in on, and nothing to listen to yourself if you have need. the only proof you have of what happened is your own recollection, maybe the hearsay reports of others, and the opportunity to pay money for a transcript you can’t get for ninety days.

i believe this is an important case which calls for public attention. people are being unfairly ground beneath the crushing wheels of federal process put in riaa hands. i believe the public has a right to see how its courts are being used and joel and jammie have a right to show them. to me it seems a fundamental citizen’s right to record ones interactions with the state.

to say nothing of my own interest in representing joel. my memory is not good. i rely on my recorder to allow me to review and recall. this is integral to how i work.

and i’ve been at it for a long time

———-
From: Debbie Rosenbaum
so for you, it’s “objective evidence.” if the rest of the world gets by on “hearsay,” why is it so important to you to demonstrate objectivity?

———-
From: Charles Nesson
pls send me the press that is so describing me

———-
From: Debbie Rosenbaum
you should share those images on your blog. they are fabulous!

i read more than the average consumer of press that follows you and the tenenbaum/thomas cases, so my view is skewed, but your persistence in insisting on recording collectively comes across as annoying.

your/our non-traditional tactics have pissed off a lot of people, drawing wide eyes and criticism from both should-be-friends (beckerman), should-be-foes (sheffner), that letter you posted on your blog yesterday, and david’s continual harsh criticism on our clinical list-serv re: going to the SCOTUS with our webcast issue. with the ability to express views with wide distribution and low cost via the internet, the message that we’re/you’re crazy comes across; there are a lot more of “them” than there are of us.

we aren’t practicing law in the traditional sense, which scares a lot of risk-adverse attorneys. personally, i find it liberating to challenge the boundaries of legal procedure rather than conforming to the generations of “this is how it’s always been done so you must also do it this way,” but that’s also why i’ve gravitated towards having you as a mentor and teacher. it’s not the norm.

one of the best messages i’ve learned in this entire experience came from sheffner, much to my dismay, who explained that opponents can criticize each other tastefully and respectfully, which he has accomplished … but others have not. that’s my continual battle in PR efforts. and in the end, all these thoughts just underscore the need for strong and proactive PR to “explain what we’re thinking” at every move in the case.

more beckerman

From: Charles Nesson
Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM
To: Ray Beckerman

It may be unfair to the record companies that the internet came along; progress happens; Henry Ford was unfair to the buggy whip business;

But it is not fair of the record companies to put it off on the kids.

It is amazing to me that the riaa can impose thousands of lawsuits through the federal courts not for compensation but purely for message-making with not more than a helpless whimper from the federal court. The record companies admit they lose money on these law suits. That means all the money they collect goes to lawyers paid to grind poor people up in federal process.

And this is not an abuse because we are to presume that Congress intended this. Why would we presume it when there is no evidence of it?

Think what an amazing proposition this is, that Congress can authorize private lawsuits for message-making as their primary purpose, and here we are to act as if this is what Congress actually did, by the by.

There is no precedent for this.

———-
From: Ray Beckerman
Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM
To: nesson

I disagree; I don’t share your sympathy for the record companies.

I haven’t seen anything “unfair to the record companies”.

The Copyright Act, as interpreted by the courts, has been able to

accommodate new technologies, and there is nothing about the

internet that is inconsistent with copyright law. Brick-and-mortar

analogies abound, and will provide guidance as we work our way

through.

The record companies came into the internet age with a huge head start – a vast

and valuable collection of sound recordings with enormous

earning potential as digital music. Instead of seeing digitalization

and the internet as the unbelievable business opportunity that

it represented, and recognizing the enormous marketing and promotional

opportunities it offered, their executives hemmed and hawed and

wondered, too accustomed to being monopolists and too accustomed

to talking only to each other, to reach out to explore and to make deals.

They let it all pass them by, until musicians no longer needed them,

having found the ability to market their music directly to their fans

and potential fans.

The same visionless executives then decided to find a scapegoat,

for their own failure, and those same failed executives are the ones

pursuing this phony witch hunt, mercilessly, ruthlessly, and to the

detriment of the companies they are supposed to be serving.

Thanks to their (a) initial failure, and (b) compounding of that failure,

those 4 record companies are shrinking as we speak; numerous new

‘record companies’ and marketing channels are thriving; and many

musicians now act as their own ‘label’, keeping the fruits of their labor

instead of having almost all of it skimmed off by parasites.

No, it’s quite fair.

The only thing that’s unfair is the misery they have created for

so many American families.

instruction to the jury – respect

Jury Instruction

right to record

ws219135_hypothetical right to record
where in charlie is stopped, hypothetically, while recording in a public place and told by police to turn his recorder off

suppose charlie has his apartment rigged with a motion-activated net-nanny camera to check on babysitters and such. he responds to a knock on his front door by police who proceed to intrude and search his place without a warrant, seizing several items, all of it automatically recorded. has charlie violated the law? do the police have a right to unlawfully intrude in privacy?

true jamaica rising

ws219133.kevin_rises

true jamaican