Comments on: evidence http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/06/28/evidence/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:00:24 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anon. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/06/28/evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-8585 Anon. Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:27:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/?p=919#comment-8585 "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. “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.

]]> By: Sam I Am http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/06/28/evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-8439 Sam I Am Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:35:20 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/?p=919#comment-8439 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. 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.

]]> By: jjj http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/06/28/evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-8438 jjj Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:22:39 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/?p=919#comment-8438 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. 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.

]]> By: Sam I Am http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/06/28/evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-8428 Sam I Am Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:28:19 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/?p=919#comment-8428 "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. “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.

]]> By: jjj http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/06/28/evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-8415 jjj Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:17:20 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/?p=919#comment-8415 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. 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.

]]> By: Sam I Am http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/06/28/evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-8410 Sam I Am Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:57:20 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/?p=919#comment-8410 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? 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?

]]>