RIAA Case May Be Televised On Internet

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston case in which the defendant is represented by Prof. Charles Nesson and his CyberLaw class at Harvard Law School, the defendant has requested that audio-visual coverage of the court proceedings be made available to the public via the internet. Taking the RIAA at its word — that the reason for its litigation program is to 'educate the public' — the defendant's motion (PDF) queries why the RIAA would oppose public access: 'Net access to this litigation will allow an interested and growingly sophisticated public to understand the RIAA's education campaign. Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging. How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.'"

Comments

There is a better way...

[alain94040]

I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is.

But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get...

15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like.

Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did).

When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again.

Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.

--
Free and Fair, Friend or Foe?

Re:There is a better way...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is. But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get... 15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like. Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did). When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again. Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.

If, for example, the tech community could get a chance to watch the testimony of the RIAA's "expert" and "investigator", I think a lot of good input would be communicated to the defendant's lawyer. Which would be anathema to the RIAA's campaign, since its primary fuel is ignorance.

Re:There is a better way...

[b4upoo]

The problem reduces to the existence of the middle man. Back in the day before microphones existed every event of any size required a large band or orchestra. Once the microphone came along a small band could function so that anywhere from three to five musicians could entertain a large crowd. Music at home was normally provided by each family being able to play from sheet music. Next the radio was the stroke of death for music. Employment for professional musicians, once common, became rare. Worse yet all of the monkeys in the middle started wanting a piece of the action. The radio station, the record companies, the TV stations and so called agents began to feed deeply from the pockets of real musicians. Supporting these men in the middle harms music and musicians in a thousand different ways. Rebel actions to kill off these monkeys in the middle are not immoral at all.

Hold the line against the night

[gavron]

Sunlight is feared by all those who would use darkness and ignorance to enslave those who cannot break free. Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem. Ehud

Re:Televise?

[91degrees]

Your computer is a television in that it allows you to view moving images transmitted over a distance:P

Yeah - I'm being pedantic and taking liberties with definitions.

Re:To whom knows...

[Firehed]

Have you seen how our legal system works these days? The whole thing would completely fall apart with any level of transparency, never mind audience feedback. It's easy enough to get someone jailed when they're being judged by a dozen people who couldn't think up an excuse to get out of jury duty... not so much when you've got ten thousand pointing out the flaws and inaccuracies in the prosecution's arguments.

Re:To whom knows...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

NYCL, or other informed lawyers: Why is there such a disdain and avoidance to audio/visual recording and dissemination about court cases?

There isn't. There is a growing trend towards it. Only the RIAA has "disdain" and "avoidance", since shining a light on things tends to encourage their mortal enemy... the Truth.