You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

Monthly Archive for January, 2009

building the public domain

public access through the net to open noncommercial media generated from public proceedings

yesterday my class in evidence watched obama’s inauguration live on the net along with millions of others. cable clearly clearer and more reliable but net ok

we have been lured by copyright to think of the public domain as what’s left over after copyright has taken its share.

who owns the copyright in the inauguration event
no one you say
who owns the copy rights in recordings of it
may i freely copy from nbc

who makes the recording that is in the public domain
who makes the recording available to the public

riaa’s appeal

(thanks ethan)
F. The District Court’s Order Will Harm Petitioners by Promoting
the Defendant’s Position to the General Public and the Potential
Jury Pool.

There are additional defects in the district court’s Order which only serve to
magnify the harm the Petitioners will likely suffer. The district court bases its
decision to allow a broadcast of the proceedings upon a conclusion that there is a
public interest in the underlying litigation and that broadcasting the “gavel to
gavel” proceedings over the internet will somehow serve as a public benefit—
“especially via a medium so carefully attuned to the Internet Generation captivated
by these file-sharing lawsuits.” See Order at 4. But the district court’s chosen
means to achieve this so called “public benefit” is deeply flawed—indeed it is a
means that appears specifically designed to benefit the Defendant and his counsel
to the detriment of Petitioners.
First, the district court has elected to use the Berkman Center—an entity that
was founded by and is currently co-directed by Mr. Tenenbaum’s counsel—as the
exclusive source for the public to view the proposed broadcast. As the district
court likely knows, Berkman Center’s website contains a wide variety of material
that is harshly critical of Petitioners and the proceedings in the underlying
litigation. See, e.g., /cyberone/2008/11/03/in-plainenglish-quashing-subpoenas
(video discussion erroneously accusing the Petitioners
of misusing the discovery process in an effort to “victimize Joel”); (lengthy blog purporting to
describe the district court litigation); (recorded
interview with Mr. Tenenbaum and his defense counsel regarding the litigation and
advocating on behalf of Mr. Tenenbaum’s legal position). As discussed below,
much of that material misrepresents the actual underlying facts of the case. Id.
The Berkman Center’s website even includes a link to, through which
users can access a website entitled “Joel Fights Back” which is actively soliciting
donations to fund Mr. Tenenbaum’s legal costs in connection with this matter. See Accordingly, in the name of “public interest”, the
district court has directed the general public to a website replete with propaganda
regarding the Defendant’s position in connection with this case, and that is
specifically designed to promote Defendant’s interests in this case. Under these
circumstances, it is unclear how the court’s January 14, 2009 Order in any way
advances the “public interest.” To the contrary, by electing to expand selectively
the district court’s proceedings into a forum that is plainly sympathetic and
supportive of the Defendant in this case, the Order creates a serious risk of
unfairly infecting the pool from which the jury in this case will be selected.
Indeed, by issuing an order designating the Berkman Center’s website—a
website replete with information that is openly antagonistic to the Plaintiffs’ legal
position in this case—as the exclusive means by which the general public can
educate itself about these proceedings, the district court has already provoked a
rash of publicity directing the public to the Berkman Center’s website. See Order
at 10; Federal Judge Orders Groundbreaking Webcast of Hearing, The Boston
Globe, pages A1, A12 (January 15, 2009) (hereinafter “Globe Article”) (stating
that “Courtroom View Network will “narrowcast” the hearing in its entirety to the
website of the Berkman Center, which is open to the public”); In Internet First,
RIAA File Sharing Hearing to Be Webcast, (January 14, 2009)
(hereinafter “Wired Article”) (explaining that “[t]he internet feed will be provided
by Courtroom View Network and will be funneled to the Berkman Center for
Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, which will broadcast the hearing
live”). Much of this new publicity repeats various misrepresentations that are
available through the Berkman Center’s website. See, e.g., Wired Article (stating
that “the RIAA seeks $1 million for the seven songs Tenenbaum downloaded in
2004” when in fact there are hundreds of sound recordings at issue in the case and
Petitioners have not specified the damages they are seeking); Globe Article (stating
that “the RIAA sued Tenenbaum over songs it says he downloaded when he was
about 17” when in fact the claims in the case address conduct by the Defendant
that occurred at least as recently as 2005, when the Defendant was in his mid-20s).
The proposed broadcast will likely only increase the number of such inaccurate

kevin wallen does the hanging knee trap

kevin: what are you doing up so late?
i won the tournament by the way
i went undefeated 3 and 0
i am currently putting one of my matches on youtube right now
check it out and let me know what you think
Sent at 2:06 AM on Sunday

help with riaa

is there any evidence that any members of congress knew at the time they passed the 1999 Digital Theft Deterrence Act that the recording industry was intending to use the statute as a basis for suing its music fans

is there any evidence that riaa and company were intending to so use the statute once they got it passed

thanks dmitriy

Dmitriy Tishyevich
to nokike, Isaac, Charles, cyberone-riaa

8:44 PM (9 hours ago) [Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Oppose Amended Counterclaim.draft2.doc]

Thanks, Nnamdi.

Enclosed is an updated draft incorporating section 5, the unconstitutionality of statutory damages argument. In our recent conference, Charlie has said that we should switch to a more vernacular and concise approach in our counterclaim, and I will stick to that instruction in preparing the remaining two sub-arguments.


isaac please light up my blog

class action

Forwarded conversation
Subject: riaa


First, let me applaud you on your stance against the riaa. My daughter is a student at Case Western. She as also received a letter demanding $4100. before Jan. 19 or face legal action. Since the school did not fight the request and handed over the students i.p addresses. They have referred her to an attorney. When she contacted him he wanted $5000 for a retainer. 21 students received the letters, that’s over $100,000. My wife is an employee of the school which is the only way we could afford to send her there. I understand you cannot give legal advice,(I have spoken to Mr. Beckerman in N.Y). I can scrape together the $4100 to keep her out of court, Do you feel I will have any recourse to recover anything once you win your case and declare this witch-hunt unconstitutional ?

Good luck and stick it to those greedy !@$#@!

Dale English

From: Charles Nesson
Date: Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
To: dynamictool

joel is prepared to stand as a representative for the class of all on whom the oppression of the recording industry’s litigation campaign has fallen. i, together with my students, am prepared to represent him in that capacity, and thus to represent you. we are working on the preparation or our class action counterclaim as we speak.

when appropriate (in my judgment) to an open project and not sensitive (in my judgment) in terms of privacy, i may post email to my blog. all privacy requests respected.

cary sherman is a damn nice guy

no bullshit

analyze the problem
see what the problem is
feel for it
articulate it
put argument into words

your feeling goes out to one
pick the other as your place to start

understand the story of the other told from the other point of view

what is my challenge in teaching you

to teach you what i learned and how i learned it
all in the past tense
when what i learned and how i learned it is to be

terry fisher for copyright czar

his appointment to follow an interim period during which judge nancy gertner presides over a trial between riaa and joel

joel has the net in back of him
like the verizon commercial

during the interim period a trial unfolds within the structure of the federal rules presided over by a federal judge

all of the emnities of the past imposed by riaa’s abuse of music lovers and computer users are brought to the surface of our national consciousness and resolved.

the trial process itself is understood and represented as civic education

we the people conceptually instantiated

our love for creative artists expressed

terry fisher for copy-law czar, founder of i-law

building on john palfrey’s task force report to Attorneys General

zittrain to show kids the way tol digital empowerment

berkman center to underwrite bringing joel’s case to the open net


sal demasi celebrates the affirmation of his leadership
the boston globe still his enemy
i have been YOUTUBED

i have received a notice this morning that
my art
my politics
my poker play
my video youtube took down


elena kagan to be solicitor general. with obama as her presidential base and jamie’s mission as her guide we have leadership for law as our shining ideal and best national and international strategy.

elena and obama, both poker players, and scalia

check out the kagan file