The accused is Joel Tenenbaum, 25, of Providence, R.I. On the surface, the recording industry’s case against Tenenbaum appears to be pretty clear cut, for the defendant has freely admitted to using Kazaa to download illicit tracks.

However, Tenenbaum is represented by Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, who has been known to knock the recording industry for suing individual peer-to-peer users for copyright infringing activity.

The trial was supposed to start yesterday, but got hung up in the jury selection phase when Nesson asked potential jurors if they ever illicitly downloaded songs via P2P networks, causing several possible jury members to be dismissed after answering affirmatively.

It was also during Nesson’s jury questioning when the case took a rather strange turn, with the lawyer asking potential jurors if they’ve ever played poker, what they thought of his clothes, what their “passion” is and what they think of marijuana laws.

The questioning resulted in the judge admonishing Nesson for revealing non-related facts about himself, and warned the Harvard Law School professor not to do it again.

However, Nesson did score a victory of sorts. He convinced the judge to allow him to rearrange the courtroom’s furniture, claiming the standard floor plan where both plaintiff’s and defendant’s tables face the judge while the jury sits off to one side was not a good “rhetorical space.” The judge agreed, and now the defendant’s table faces the jury, while the plaintiff’s table remains facing the judge.

It appears Nesson is mounting a defense that focuses more on whether Tenenbaum’s song-swapping actions were actual copyright violations.

For example, Nesson had planned on describing Tenenbaum’s downloading actions as “fair use,” because the defendant planned on using the songs only for his personal use, reports PC World. But U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner disagreed yesterday, and told Nesson he couldn’t pursue that avenue of reasoning.

Another rather unique line of defense is something unofficially labeled the “exploding Styrofoam defense” and is expected, if allowed, to demonstrate the difference between atoms and bits by using a block of Styrofoam and a Necker Cube – those optical-illusion drawings depicting one square or rectangle placed over another – challenging the viewer to determine which shape is the front and which is the back.

The recording industry has objected to the use of the “exploding Styrofoam” example, but the judge has yet to rule whether she will allow it in her courtroom.

During his opening statement, Nesson told the court his client began downloading songs while still a teenager.

“He was a kid who did what kids do and loved technology and loved music,” Nesson said.

Not only is this the second P2P lawsuit of its kind to go to trial, it is also one of the last. The recording industry ceased its practice of suing P2P users for copyright infringement, preferring instead to work with ISPs to prevent music piracy. Although the industry is no longer seeking new P2P cases, it is still following through on cases still on the books.

Like Tenenbaum, who is charged with infringing upon 30 major label recordings. Federal law says the labels are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. However, the law also allows the jury to boost that figure up to $150,000 per track if it finds the defendant willfully committed the violations.

But there’s a reason Tenenbaum’s case is only the second to make it to court. Most folks sued by the recording industry for trading copyrighted tracks on P2P networks opted to settle for a few thousand dollars rather than accrue legal fees defending themselves.

But according to the Boston Globe, Tenenbaum claimed every time he attempted to settle, the recording industry kept raising the settlement figure. When he offered $3,000, the labels demanded $4,000, and when he offered $5,250, the labels wanted $10,000, he said.

However, recording industry spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said the labels would have preferred to settle with Tenenbaum out of court.

“This is an individual who has admitted to egregious peer to peer use, and instead of accepting responsibility for his actions, and settling in a reasonable manner, he’s chosen to wage a protracted legal battle,” Duckworth said.

There’s not a lot of precedent predicting what might happen. In fact, the only case of this kind to make it to a verdict was when Minnesota resident Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of infringing the copyrights of 24 tracks.

Tenenbaum better hope that decision didn’t set a precedent. In that case, the jury ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay the labels almost $2 million in damages.

Please click here to read the entire PC World article.

Please click here to read the entire Boston Globe article.