In one corner, the Free Software Foundation, headed by bearded guru (and sometime songwriter) Richard "I don't use a Web browser" Stallman. In the other, the recording industry, where beards only exist as wispy examples of hipster irony (unless you're Kenny Rogers) and where the songwriting skills are (slightly) better. What would happen if the two groups ever met in court over a file-sharing case? Now we know.

The FSF has weighed in on the highly-publicized Joel Tenenbaum case, where a graduate student stands accused of sharing copyrighted music files for years on P2P networks. Tenenbaum is defended by Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, but the Free Software Foundation has also shoved its oar into the water and is paddling around a bit, trying to make some waves.

The FSF has weighed in on the case as an amicus—a friend of the court. Its main argument, co-written by longtime RIAA scourge Ray Beckerman, was that the statutory damages bore no link to actual damages suffered in such cases, and were thus not legal.

That filing allowed the RIAA to respond. Respond it did—and not just to the legal arguments. "The FSF is not a neutral friend of the Court," it said. The FSF has "an open and virulent bias against copyrights in general, and against the recording industry in particular" and should therefore not be allowed to file, because it can't "provide a neutral source of information or legal analysis to aid the court."

And what about Beckerman, the lawyer working with the FSF on the brief? The RIAA is (still) not a fan. "FSF retained as its 'of counsel' an attorney who runs a blog entitled 'Recording Industry vs. The People' and who is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant in one of the Plaintiffs’ enforcement cases."

This attack comes after RIAA lawyers accused Beckerman last year of practicing "vexatious litigation" and making "false statements" in court filings.

When the FSF moved to file an updated version of its brief, the response from the recording industry was just as sharp. The brief showed "even more strikingly the deep animus FSF and its counsel hold for Plaintiffs, their counsel, and the recording industry." Such a "biased organization" should not be allowed to brief the court... especially when it's full of lies "misrepresentations of material facts."

The RIAA also didn't think the FSF should have the chance to revise its brief, essentially arguing that it was a "do-over" after RIAA lawyers pointed out all the holes in the brief the first time around.

Beckerman, writing on the FSF blog, said, "The RIAA's opposition to our filing of a revised amicus curiae brief contained no meritorious legal argument. It is a wonder why they filed it at all, other than to demonstrate to the judge that they have no response to the well-settled law that punitive awards which are disproportionate to the actual damages sustained are unconstitutional."

That's actually quite mild, considering what the RIAA is dishing out, and the FSF court filings are (unusually for the group) models of rhetorical restraint. But the FSF certainly isn't above taking a solid whack at the music business; in an opinion piece about the Tenenbaum case, FSF Operations Manager John Sullivan charged that "the RIAA doesn’t stop at manipulating copyright law to gouge artists and the public."

The whole thing has been something of a sideshow to a main event that long ago turned into a circus, but the involvement of groups like the FSF shows just how much attention the case is getting. With Professor Nesson set to argue in court that file-sharing is merely fair use, the case has assumed an importance far beyond that of most such lawsuits, and everyone wants a chance to be heard.