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

Tag Archive for 'tenenbaum'

TOP 2009 EVIDENCE EXAM question 2

Excerpt of Remarks to RIAA/MPAA Joint Luncheon

… Joel’s supporters have a have a bold vision for the future. They see an open net, an artistic culture of sharing and collaboration, a culture of unbridled creativity and innovation. Beyond this, they see the net as a means of reorganizing and democratizing society; of breaking down centralized power structures and propaganda systems, and of breaking out of outmoded mores and traditions. They argue that existing intellectual property law stands as an obstacle to their imagined future and the benefits it promises.

The fact is that openness, creativity, innovation, collaboration and freedom are all desirable goals. If we are seen as opposing these things, we will lose. Joel’s supporters have framed this as a battle between the future, which they represent, and the past, which we represent. Our challenge is to demonstrate that Joel’s supporters have not set a realistic path for achieving these goals, but that we can.
To do so, we must first be honest with ourselves. Our industry is, to borrow a phrase from social science, “path dependant.” Our options for future evolution are constrained by the inertia of the systems we have developed over the past century. Countless peoples’ time and resources have been devoted to developing this way of creating and distributing art and culture. This is not simply a matter of sunk costs and it encompasses more than just our shareholders, our employees and our artists. It encompasses the local economies of which we are the lifeblood, the human capital, the specialized expertise developed to produce our products, the distribution networks, infrastructure, financing systems, talent scouting and on and on.

What the internet vanguard fails to recognize is the extent to which they too are dependent on this path. We represent more than just a way of doing business—we are the way culture is financed and created in our society. Joel’s supporters believe that we can simply be consigned to the dustbin of history—as if having reached the top rung you could saw off the ladder beneath yourself. They ignore the enormous downside risk to abandoning this path. Starve us of revenue and musicians are not paid, movies are not made, and the engine for cultural production collapses. Without the mass culture we create, there would be no shared experience to forge our national identity; to serve as the glue that holds our society together; to enable us to relate to one another in a meaningful way. Without mass-culture there would be no counter-culture. Without the art we create, what would there be to share, to borrow, to respond to, to remix, and to define oneself in opposition to? Art and information must be, for lack of a better word, commodified in order to be organized and integrated into a coherent social fabric.

Our copyright laws are imperfectly suited to the realities of the internet and must be reformed. However, if we did not resist the virtually unlimited free distribution of our products that is taking place over the internet, we would be bankrupt long before any reasonable accommodation could be reached. Joel’s supporters must recognize that our industry plays a vital role in fueling the creativity of the open net. In turn, we must recognize that the collaborative net culture creates genuine value. Together, we must find a way to harness and monetize this creativity and innovation without dislocating everything that has come before. …

private public thanks to doug lichtman

doug, thanks for a good fair presentation. you have started an intelligent conversation. i am grateful to you and to all who are participating. i look forward to your further podcasts and particularly recommend as interviewees pam samuelson, martin redish, tom colby, ben zipursky.

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

merry christmas to the net

To: Cary Sherman

hi cary,

thanks for your note. i don’t really understand why you are continuing the litigation, but if that’s your position then i ask you to agree to our motion, just filed, to admit internet to the courtroom, and then to join with me in making the trial the best possible example of civil discourse within the rules of federal civil procedure.

happy holidaze
best to you and family from me and fern


morning mail: From Cary Sherman

From: Cary Sherman
Date: Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Subject: FW: AP: Music industry drops effort to sue song swappers
To: Charles Nesson

Hi Charlie.

Saw your comments in the AP story below. I hope you understand that we can’t just walk away from cases we’ve filed. Doesn’t mean we want to litigate everything, we’d obviously prefer not to. If you have any thoughts on a resolution, I’d be all ears.

Sorry I couldn’t tell you months ago that we were getting out of the lawsuits, but I’m sure you understand.

I hope you have a great holiday (and don’t have to spend the holidays working, now that you’re a litigator!).

Please give my best to Fern.


Music industry drops effort to sue song swappers

By RYAN NAKASHIMA – 27 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The group representing the U.S. recording industry said Friday it has abandoned its policy of suing people for sharing songs protected by copyright and will work with Internet service providers to cut abusers’ access if they ignore repeated warnings.

The move ends a controversial program that saw the Recording Industry Association of America sue about 35,000 people since 2003 for swapping songs online. Because of high legal costs for defenders, virtually all of those hit with lawsuits settled, on average for around $3,500. The association’s legal costs, in the meantime, exceeded the settlement money it brought in.

The association said Friday that it stopped sending out new lawsuits and warnings in August, and then agreed with several leading U.S. Internet service providers, without naming which ones, to notify alleged illegal file-sharers and cut off service if they failed to stop.

It credited the lawsuit campaign with raising awareness of piracy and keeping the number of illegal file-sharers in check while the legal market for digital music took off. With two weeks left in the year, legitimate sales of digital music tracks soared for the first time past the 1 billion mark, up 28 percent over all of last year, according to Nielsen Soundscan.

“We’re at a point where there’s a sense of comfort that we can replace one form of deterrent with another form of deterrent,” said RIAA Chairman and Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol. “Filing lawsuits as a strategy to deal with a big problem was not our first choice five years ago.”

The new notification program is also more efficient, he said, having sent out more notices in the few months since it started than in the five years of the lawsuit campaign.

“It’s much easier to send notices than it is to file lawsuits,” Bainwol said.

The decision to scrap the legal attack was first reported in The Wall Street Journal.

The group says it will still continue to litigate outstanding cases, most of which are in the pre-lawsuit warning stage, but some of which are before the courts.

The decision to press on with existing cases drew the ire of Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who is defending a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry’s lawsuits.

“If it’s a bad idea, it’s a bad idea,” said Nesson. He is challenging the constitutionality of the suits, which, based on the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, can impose damages of $150,000 per infringement, far in excess of the actual damage caused.

Nesson’s client, Joel Tenenbaum, faces the possibility of more than $1 million in damages for allegedly downloading seven songs illegally, which Nesson called “cruel and unusual punishment.” The case is set to go to trial in district court in Massachusetts on Jan. 22.

Brian Toder, a lawyer with Chestnut & Cambronne in Minneapolis, who defended single mother Jammie Thomas in a copyright suit filed by the RIAA, said he is also set to retry the case March 9 after a judge threw out a $222,000 decision against her.

“I think it’s a good thing that they’ve ended this campaign of going after people,” Toder said.

“But they need to change how people spend money on records,” he said. “People like to share music. The Internet makes it so easy. They have to do something to change this business model of theirs.”

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.

now we will see copy-right’s real strategy

From: Joel Tenenbaum
Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Subject: [cyberone-riaa] [Fwd: riaa]


“Indeed, many in the music industry felt the lawsuits had outlived their

what is the connection between riaa and Davenport Lyons

UK ISPs were ordered earlier this year [and in 2007] by the High Court to disclose information relating to its customer’s data, based on information provided to them by amongst others, video games companies. The information sought was based on the customer’s IP address. Pursuant to CPR 31.18, lawyers applied for an order that the ISPs disclose the full name, postal address and telephone number of the subscriber of each of the IP addresses supplied.

The game plan was to match each IP address with an individual and write to them with a hefty threatening letter and a request for £500-600. If this sum was not paid, court action was threatened, costing tens of thousands of pounds. It all seemed fairly conclusive. The ISPs complied and the Lawyers [Davenport Lyons] commenced the enormous task of writing to over (so we understand) 25,000 potential infringers.

read on