Joel Tenenbaum vs the RIAA: live TV, online
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- Judge Nancy Gertner has put another fly in the RIAA’s ointment.
The last thing Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG RIAA attack lawyers want is for people to see them live and in full, glorious colour – legal warts and all.
But Gertner who, in the past, hasn’t been unsympathetic to RIAA victims, has now agreed to allow oral arguments in the Joel Tenenbaum vs the RIAA case, featuring Harvard profesor Charles Nesson and his team of student lawyers, to be televised online.
But before you get too excited, “The ruling does not address the issue of televising subsequent proceedings, including the trial,” notes Recording Industry vs The People, going on »»»
While the Plaintiffs object to the narrowcasting of this proceeding, …. their objections are curious. At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material. Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities. Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation.
Nothing in the local rules of the District Court of Massachusetts, the policies of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, life, or logic suggests that this motion should be denied. As Judge Weinstein noted: “No reason has been suggested to depart from the policy that, in general, the public should be permitted and encouraged to observe the operation of its courts in the most convenient manner possible, so long as there is no interference with the due process, the dignity of the litigants, jurors, and witnesses, or with other appropriate aspects of the administration of justice.” …..
Much like the proceedings before then-Judge Alito and audiovisual coverage of legal arguments in Courts of Appeals around the country, the district court hearing now at issue involves only legal argument. Moreover, coverage will be “gavel to gavel” — streaming a complete recording of the hearing to a publicly available website — not edited for an evening news soundbite. The public benefit of offering a more complete view of these proceedings is plain, especially via a medium so carefully attuned to the Internet Generation captivated by these filesharing lawsuits.
Here’s the Harvard team’s release »»»
Back in December, Professor Charles Nesson and his team of Harvard Law students filed a motion to admit the Internet into the courtroom, which is traditionally prohibited. Nesson is defending Joel Tenenbaum, who has been sued by the RIAA with punishment of more than a million dollars for downloading seven songs.
“In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet Generation — the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general, and the internet in particular, as commonplace,” wrote Judge Gertner in her opinion. “It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if not almost exclusively, over the internet.” The full opinion can be viewed here: http://joelfightsback.com/wp-content/uploads/730.pdf.
CVN will provide a live feed to the Berkman Center, and although details are still being worked out, it is anticipated that the Berkman Center will make the stream publicly available on its website for free. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School will be underwriting costs and making the content available to the public under a creative commons noncommercial license.
“The federal court is open not only as a court of justice but a forum of civic education,” said Nesson. This opportunity will allow intelligent public domain to shape itself by attending and engaging in a public trial of issues conflicting our society.”
“The immediacy of internet-based access to court opinions allows lawyers, professors, students, and reporters to better keep abreast of the most recent legal developments,” said Aaron Dulles, one of Nesson’s students. Debbie Rosenbaum, another student who is keeping a daily Twitter account of every development in the case, added, “It seems like the new media community is eagerly anticipating this opportunity. The response from people following the case has been tremendous.”
For more information, please visit our new website: www.joelfightsback.com.
Follow our student team on Twitter: http://twitter.com/joelfightsback.Questions about CVN and the cameras in the courtroom movement can be directed to Jonathan Sherman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, CVN’s regular outside counsel, at 202.237.9605.
Stay tuned.
Recording Industry vs The People – January 22nd oral arguments in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum will be televised over the internet, January , 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
televised pwnage? Im so there.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
The lapdog, The RIAA, seems to thrive on keeping things in the dark, so that they legal machinations can go unhindered from state to state without judges nor anyone else keeping an eye or track of what the legal proceedings actually said and what was really decided.
Only the items in their favor or what can be twisted to read in their favor, being disseminated to the media. Many of the early cases in my line of thought were tried in the media way earlier than the actual court case. I seem to recall one victim learning of the intention to sue through the newspaper rather than from due process. To me, this poisons any potential jury or any potential judge by placing a bias in their minds long before the case is presented within the courts jurisdiction.
Often items come to light later, such as the case where the RIAA has dropped pursuing litigation because one of the sitting judges has informed the RIAA in a previous case that there would be no more attempts at grouped victims, ie. John Does 1-22. That each would have to be gone after in a separate case. It is only through those that go back into court records, lawyers whom these cases in particular interest, or those with an intense laymans curiosity that ever know of them. Without those individuals spreading the word around the net, the rest of the public with a potential interest would not know.
This seems to be the preferred method the RIAA likes and wishes dearly to keep. The education campaign seems on par with the other statement that they represent the artists rights. Sounds really good to hear the sound bites but when push comes to shove, any moves that would support them with free services to support their professed interests suddenly become undesired interference. To me actions have always spoken louder than words. Once again I hear an unvoiced scream in the dark saying it ain’t so.
Then again…what’s new in this attempt to prevent the word from getting out?
January 15th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Oh they like publicity, sure, but only the kind of publicity they can explicitly control, like advertisements informing people that “filesharing is bad, mkay?”
They generally want to keep their court proceedings away from the public eye, especially since it’s finally coming to light what a crock of shit their legal strategy is.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:51 am
They have until the 22nd to either stop it from happening, or cutting and running.
Can’t wait to see what they choose.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I smell a weasel-like cut and run coming. something Charles Nesson won’t allow.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Made of win. This is going to be fantastic.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I noticed that this is not the first time at all that you mention the topic. Why have you chosen it again?