Judge postpones hearing in key RIAA lawsuit

A federal judge in Rhode Island has postponed a hearing in a case that may test the legal underpinnings of the Recording Industry Association of America's suits against file swapping.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lincoln Almond on Monday rescheduled the hearing until January 6. Its purpose is to determine whether the parents of the defendant, Joel Tenenbaum, will be forced to turn over their computer to the RIAA's lawyers.

This case is unusual because a group of Harvard law school students, with the help of Harvard law professor Charles Nesson, is providing Tenenbaum with an aggressive legal defense. Their goal: to argue that the law the RIAA relies on is unconstitutional.

Few judges are eager to strike down laws duly enacted by Congress, and there's no evidence that the judges in this case are an exception to that rule. Still, the Harvard team is arguing that a 1999 copyright law is so Draconian it amounts to "essentially a criminal statute;" that it grants too much authority to copyright holders; and that it violates due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

In August, Tenenbaum's lawyers filed a countersuit in Massachusetts district court, accusing the RIAA of abuse of process and saying the law was not intended to award such "grossly, excessive punitive damages."

The RIAA has not exactly been idle. It responded with a motion (PDF) saying that "while it is clear that Defendant would rather not be a defendant in a copyright infringement suit, this is not the basis of a claim for abuse of process." More broadly, the recording industry argues that billions of songs are illegally swapped every month on peer-to-peer networks, and that as a result it has suffered "devastating" financial losses.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner's courtroom in Boston is where most of the action has been taking place; the Rhode Island proceedings are a sideshow to the main event.

So far, Gertner has seemed frustrated by the large number of RIAA-named defendants who have shown up in her courtroom, typically lacking lawyers and without much knowledge of what their rights and obligations are under the law.

One hint at her possible receptivity to the Harvard students' argument can be found in her remarks at a hearing earlier this year: "There is a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources. The law is also overwhelmingly on their side. They bring cases against individuals, individuals who don't have lawyers and who don't understand their legal rights...the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people...At a certain point after 133 cases in my court and countless around the country, the plaintiffs are going to realize this is making no sense and making them look bad."

[Chapmaniac]

Right on!

[sharmajunior]

Yeah!!!!! F*** the RIAA

[HlLLARY CLITON]

The Nazi RIAA

[karpenterskids]

UGHHHH...those RIAA people make my blood boil.

"Oh, we DESERVE to sue these million for thousands and thousands of dollars---lots of people pirate our music all the time!"

That's in NO WAY a reason to take it out on the people caught: what if real thieves were punished for all the crimes that HAVEN'T been caught? That's not how it should work AT ALL.

And the RIAA keeps bringing more and more people through their money-making machine...so ideally, the fees to cover "all those other crimes" should be decreasing as well...but guess what? Surprise, surprise...it's NOT.

[Lerianis]

Exactly right with that analogy you made. The fact is that is EXACTLY what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do: punish the few people they DO catch for the supposed 'wrongdoings' of the majority. Guess what? If the majority doesn't think that swapping music is 'bad' and 'wrong'...... any law saying it is flies in the face of public opinion, and therefore is illegal! Thomas Jefferson said that, Ben Franklin said that, so did George Washington!

[PhuQua]

If you don't like the RIAA tactics, stop buying all the songs online or cds from major labels. Buy from independent music producers. Vote with your money instead of your mouth (fingers). I have.

[Penguinisto]

Amen.

[markdoiron]

Me, too. And, I get to listen to music that I pick--rather than some corporation less interested in talent and more interested crazy lifestyles that promote bizarre music. --mark d.

[fdunn3]

The whole DMCA is warped and imbalanced and needs to be revisited.

The DMCA is now used at the drop of a hat and anybody on the defending side is likely to be up against a corporation that has too much money for attorneys while the regular citizen will go broke trying just to start a case.

This is kind of like playing poker where you have $25 of chips and the other player has $10,000 of chips. All they have to do is rasie the stakes over your $25.

It is an inequity that the DMCA and the legislators that made it law did not count on.

In essence, if you don't plead guilty (even if you aren't) they will financially bankrupt you.

[byl01]

What do you mean, "did not count on"?
That's exactly what the legislators and their RIAA owners counted on in the first place.

[Endbringer]

I am so glad that someone is trying to stand up on Constitutional grounds against these people. The purpose of copyright was not to grant money, it was to make sure the artist got his/her recognition for the work. Jefferson never intended nor expected a corporation to own a copyright for longer than a person's normal lifetime. All of this stems from the SCOTUS in the 1800s saying a company has constitutional protections just like an individual, even though it's not in the Constitution itself nor any other documents. If the founders wanted that, they would have mentioned people as well as business. Anyway, copyright was not intended to do what the corporations have done with it. Think about it. The Library of Congress was to contain as much as possible of everything as long as the creator got credit for doing it. The founders, especially Jefferson, never intended for the creators to deny access to their work without payment because then the Library of Congress could not have anything in it.

The courts have distorted the original intent of copyright law and now we're facing the consequences of it.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Hey, I'm going to repeat this: PHRACK THE RIAA!!

[shoelaceninja]

i just hate the fact that record companies spend and waste so much money on nothing, then complain that they are going to run out of money to wipe their ***** with, but make it look like the money goes elsewhere, like to hardworking, deserving people that care about everyone and don't sign artists just to get money to wipe their ***** with.

[catnett]

I find it amusing how people rationalize theft and then blame the victim for seeking redress through the courts. It's really simple - if you don't want to get sued by the record companies, don't steal music!

[syberlink]

Directv and the RIAA have sued many they knew were innocent. Where people were innocent, the suits were a fraud. Law enforcement should have stepped in to stop innocent people from being sued. Those innocent people need to do what Justice did. Law enforcement ignored justice in these suits. People need to ignore justice the next time they are a juror or a witness. Jury nullification will ignore Justice the next time.