p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- In an interesting turn of events,  the RIAA seems to be switching from Robinson & Cole to Dwyer & Collora, says Recording Industry vs The People.

The firm argued the First Circuit appeal on video streaming.

And intriguingly, judge Nancy Gertner, who’s presiding over all of the RIAA cases in Massachusetts, is an ex-Dwyer & Collora partner.

Meanwhile, in our last post yesterday, we reported the Appeals Court has ruled against allowing the oral arguments to be aired in public in the Joel Tenenbaum vs the RIAA case.

Now, “We are disappointed by the First Circuit`s decision and maintain that Joel is being denied a constitutional right to a public trial in the age of the internet,” say the Harvard student lawyers who, with their professor, Charles Nesson, have been representing Joel.

Gertner had previously ruled oral arguments could be streamed live online, and that permission might also be granted for the entire trial to be held in full light of day, said p2pnet, going on:

“The RIAA claims its whole sue `em all mess is an educational exercise.

“It is:  Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music want to let people know what could happen if they dare go up against the RIAA. [The chances of that happening to any one person are zip to zero. But never mind. It looks good in the media.]

“So it seemed more than a little odd when they pulled out all the stops to thwart efforts to publicise the hearing online via TV.”

But, “We believe that Judge Gertner was within her authority to make decisions regarding her own courtroom.  We intend to explore every legal option available to Joel,” say the students on their Joel Fights Back site.

Says Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman, “The court admitted that this was not an appropriate case for a ‘prerogative writ’ of ‘mandamus’, but claimed to have authority to issue a writ of ‘advisory mandamus,’

“The opinion came as a bit of a surprise to me because the judges appeared, during the oral argument, to have a handle on the issues,”" he says, going on:

“The decision gave me no such impression. From where I sit, the decision was wrong in a number of respects, among them:  (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule;  (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications; and,  (c) there is no such thing as ‘advisory’ mandamus or ‘advisory’ anything — our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions.”

Stay tuned.

Recording Industry vs The People – RIAA changing local counsel in Boston?, April 16, 2009
p2pnet – RIAA v Tenenbaum won`t be televised, April 17, 2009