joel tenenbaum’s deposition

Published by nesson on July 9, 2009 in american jury, rhetorical space and RIAA. 2 Comments

joel tenenbaum.JPG

joel tenenbaum at the conclusion of his deposition
charlie nesson don’t know quite when, in p-town, heading out to alchemy

issue goes deep. conflict between law in federal court and law in the court of public opinion. they should be the same. the idea that the goal of making this case a focal point for national attention and debate on issues central to our thought and future with respect to copyright and the exclusive rights of copyholders in the environment of the net should not be at odds with the process of trial by jury, with media connection stifled to facilitate obtaining an unbiased jury.

We are here to defend fair sharing, peer to peer, and to create recognition of the right to create cyberspace by digitally recording it.

2 Responses to “joel tenenbaum’s deposition”

Feed for this Entry
  • facebone
    July 9, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    The law in the court of public opinion should always be the same as the law in the federal courts?

    And thus falls all protections for minorities.

    Thus are encouraged corporations to put even more effort into swaying public opinion through manipulative saturation of the media.

    please be mindful of the law of unintended consequences.

  • jjj
    July 9, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    Something i notice the other day while reading “Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s motion to suppress MediaSentry materials”

    “In this case, MediaSentry did not need to take any kind of extraordinary steps in order to
    document the IP address of the computer from which it downloaded music files. (Id. at ΒΆ 6.)
    The IP address is transmitted as part of the normal process of connecting one computer to
    another over the Internet. (Id.) When identifying infringers on peer-to-peer networks,
    MediaSentry does only what any other user on the network can do.”

    That’s a lie,not a personal interpretation of a situation or law just a lie.The IP is not visible and while it is true that any user can find the IP using the right tools is is also true that any user can take a gun and put a bullet in it’s head but it is a rather extraordinary step and not at all expected and a clear breach of privacy.I don’t know the law but there must be some ethics code to forbid such ridiculous lies.

    I don’t know if you studied the EULA or whatever terms of use Kazaa had back then but maybe you can find something there too to hurt MediaSentry

Comments are currently closed.