Via Sydney Morning Herald: RI judge hears arguments in music downloading case:
"A Rhode Island couple whose son is accused of illegally sharing songs online should not be forced to surrender their home computer for inspection because it would violate their right to privacy, their lawyer argued at a federal court hearing Tuesday...
Record company lawyers believe Tenenbaum downloaded the songs on his parents' computer in Providence and urged a federal magistrate on Tuesday for permission to copy the machine's hard drive for proof of copyright infringement...
But Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor representing Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum and their son, said the computer contains information protected by attorney-client privilege and holds other sensitive and personal material that has nothing to do with the case."
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/ri-judge-hears-arguments-in-music-downloading-case-20090108-7c3z.html
Showing posts with label attorney-client privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorney-client privilege. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Judge Delays Ruling on Blocking Release of ‘Watchmen’ Film, New York Times, 12/30/08
Via New York Times: Judge Delays Ruling on Blocking Release of ‘Watchmen’ Film:
"Hollywood ownership fights are not rare, but a dispute over a film that has already been shot and is on the verge of being released is highly unusual. Warner released a statement saying, “We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options.”
The film has been eagerly awaited since last year, when the director Zack Snyder, best known for “300,” announced that he planned a movie based on the widely known graphic novel “Watchmen.”
But the film became embroiled in an extraordinary dispute between studios last winter, when Fox filed suit, claiming that it owned the property on which the movie was based. As the case progressed, fingers pointed from all sides at Lawrence Gordon, the veteran producer who brought the film to Warner after failed attempts over the years to make it with Fox, Universal Pictures and then Paramount...
Judge Feess then weighed in with an unusual reprimand. In a footnote to his order indicating that he would rule in favor of Fox, the judge said Mr. Gordon’s decision to invoke attorney-client privilege rather than testify about his contractual arrangements had helped Fox.
“The court takes a dim view of this conduct,” Judge Feess wrote. “The court will not, during the remainder of this case, receive any evidence from Gordon that attempts to contradict any aspect of this court’s ruling on the copyright issues under discussion.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/media/30watchmen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=watchmen&st=cse
"Hollywood ownership fights are not rare, but a dispute over a film that has already been shot and is on the verge of being released is highly unusual. Warner released a statement saying, “We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options.”
The film has been eagerly awaited since last year, when the director Zack Snyder, best known for “300,” announced that he planned a movie based on the widely known graphic novel “Watchmen.”
But the film became embroiled in an extraordinary dispute between studios last winter, when Fox filed suit, claiming that it owned the property on which the movie was based. As the case progressed, fingers pointed from all sides at Lawrence Gordon, the veteran producer who brought the film to Warner after failed attempts over the years to make it with Fox, Universal Pictures and then Paramount...
Judge Feess then weighed in with an unusual reprimand. In a footnote to his order indicating that he would rule in favor of Fox, the judge said Mr. Gordon’s decision to invoke attorney-client privilege rather than testify about his contractual arrangements had helped Fox.
“The court takes a dim view of this conduct,” Judge Feess wrote. “The court will not, during the remainder of this case, receive any evidence from Gordon that attempts to contradict any aspect of this court’s ruling on the copyright issues under discussion.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/business/media/30watchmen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=watchmen&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)