QUESTION 1
This is evidence that law school may teach you what process is, but not how it is used. Or if it is used.
This is evidence of the flexibility of judges. Evidence of the flexibility of rules.
I have embraced Vinny. I imagined a conversation between you, your students, Judge Gertner, and Mona Lisa Vito. It was, in Judge Gertner’s words, a “moment of informality.” Is Lisa describing a deer being shot in the woods? Or is she lecturing about this procedure? The request to record this moment stems from your mission. It is what this case is about. It may not be something we can learn in law school.
Evidence is what you make of it. Context can change its impact. Maybe context can change its truth.
QUESTION 2
RIAA’s Best Case against Joel
“So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
From the mind of the RIAA:
We must know our strengths, and Joel’s strengths, to win. Another lesson from Sun Tzu is that positioning is critical. We cannot let Joel be the “victim.” We must position ourselves as the victims. Perception is key. We cannot let the jury – or the judge, or the public at large – see this as “Joel fighting back.” It must be the RIAA fighting back, because Joel started this mess by downloading songs he didn’t have a right to. We, the RIAA, are just fighting back using the means granted us by congress.
We must let the evidence speak on our behalf. There is evidence connecting Joel to songs which were downloaded. He did not pay for these songs. They are not his. If we show this to the jury, we can win our case. Let the evidence speak (or speak for the evidence) [snip].
KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid. Connect Joel to the IP address, or the account which downloaded these songs, or the computer that stored them. Focus on those things we can prove. We have to maintain our position as the wronged party – don’t let Joel maneuver around this.
We have to keep the jury’s focus on what matters for our case – the actual evidence of Joel downloading.
We “know ourselves” – we know that the evidence of the downloads favors us. We “know our enemy” – Joel will try to make this case about other things; he will harp on that which we cannot prove. He may use his soapbox to obfuscate the issues, but we will focus on our evidence and stay true to our position. If we know ourselves and know Joel’s interests, we can win the battle without danger.
This case appears more and more about Nesson and company seeking to put copyright law on trial— as publicly as possible with federal (recording/infringing) law be damned— while the recording industry steers the case back to Joel, his documented admissions and the caselaw.
Gee. Does this constitute a quality legal education for team Tenenbaum? Perhaps more importantly, is this an integritied defense of Joel on the issues?
I doubt the RIAA just wants to win.A win is a must but they’ll aim for a big win.A big win scares people and makes headlines,anything else is not enough so they’ll lament how important the studios are for the art ,how much piracy hurts the artists,how sales are low and show all kind of studies and statistics so you should be prepared to fight that too,unless the defense strategy isn’t “to make it about other things”
If it is about other things, while it’s easy to attack the RIAA, the jury will still end up thinking that the law is the law and he broke it so IMHO the best bet is to make them doubt the law and attack copyright itself(in it’s current form).That should help more than anything else since almost nobody bothers to doubt the law but if they do, it will be easier for them to ignore it.
If at any point you might argue that maybe Joel had some kind of virus, here http://www.riaa.com/ in the “Leaflet on Music Downloading” pdf they warn multiple times that P2P can “expose your computer to viruses and other security risks”.
ps:Remember the RIAA has a formidable PR machine,and the mainstream press is incredibly uninformed on this matter so the average Joe is not as informed as you are and for him piracy is something obscure with a negative connotation and the RIAA knows that.
“piracy is something obscure with a negative connotation and the RIAA knows that.”
I agree with you that the judge and jury are likely to guide and decide this case on the law and its precedents. That’s the basis of the American legal system and any departure will be correctly viewed as legal adventuring in an inappropriate time and place. But no industry at any time in business history needs or ever needed a “formidible PR machine” to give piracy its negative connote.
Just as sharing with friends that which you own and are legally entitled to share is part of our collective human nature, (and copyrighted, licenced ip fails this test) so is the time-honored ideal of paying for what you take. Taking someone’s work intended by them for sale (both knowingly and willingly and depriving them of the just compensation that they are entitled to set) is legally, morally and ethically wrong and will not stand proper legal scrutiny. If you want the laws changed, work properly in the legislature to change them.
But no amount of pointing to past industry trespass will countermand this basic human understanding of fairness; not in court nor the court of public opinion. And to do it while hiding behind our precious privacy laws?….. thereby threatening ALL of our collective privacy and security for a harddrive full of pilfered entertainment?
That’s just low, and Joel is next.
I wanted to comment on the first post yesterday and i didn’t because this space is not intended for a dialogue but since you turned that into one here we go.
The RIAA needs a PR machine because that’s what keeps the law on it’s side and the people blind and deaf.Ofc they also utilize the legalized corruption that the election system is in the US to keep the laws on their side.Sadly for you the RIAA is morally and ethically wrong not the file sharers .And after all morality and ethics are defined by society and the future isn’t on your side but hey you failed to get it for the last 15 years why not keep doing so.
“If you want the laws changed, work properly in the legislature to change them”
What is properly?Bribes and blackmail,monopoly and extortion,lies and cheap propaganda?Well maybe we should do that too.
“And to do it while hiding behind our precious privacy laws?….. thereby threatening ALL of our collective privacy ”
That’s a new one,and i had no idea we had any privacy left.
But you know it just doesn’t hold water, pirates are not hiding behind any laws they are hiding behind their numbers.The RIAA just can’t sue everybody but please try ,there are a couple of people left that don’t hate you just yet.
Have a nice day,break a leg and thanks for the post,maybe it helps Joel’s team anticipate the nonsense they’ll hear in court from the RIAA.
The “nonsense” they’ll hear is legal precedent, earlier influential court decision and the history of the pertinent caselaw. We’ll see if the Judge agrees with you it’s all nonsense.
“Just as sharing with friends that which you own and are legally entitled to share is part of our collective human nature, (and copyrighted, licenced ip fails this test)”
Um, no. Sharing copyrighted works with friends has been legal as long as the US has been in existence. Ever played a song at a party? The RIAA wants you to pay a license fee, but that’s simply not what the law has *ever* said.
Copyright is intended to cover for-profit activities and public distribution (publication) of copies. Look up the history.