RIAA Seeks Web Removal of Courtroom Audio

suraj.sun writes to tell us that the RIAA has asked a federal judge to order the removal of what they are calling "unauthorized and illegal recordings" by Harvard University's Charles Nesson of pretrial hearings and depositions in a file-sharing lawsuit. "The case concerns former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who Nesson is defending in an RIAA civil lawsuit accusing him of file-sharing copyrighted music. Jury selection is scheduled in three weeks, in what is shaping up to be the RIAA's second of about 30,000 cases against individuals to reach trial. The labels, represented by the RIAA, on Monday cited a series of examples in which they accuse Nesson of violating court orders and privacy laws by posting audio to his blog or to the Berkman site."

Comments

RIAA is right on this one.

[pwnies]

As much as I dislike the RIAA, the law is with this one in this case. Even worse is that Nesson has acknowledged the fact,

He labeled as âoegobbledygookâ the felony privacy law that is punishable by up to five years in prison.

but has blatantly said that he's going to refuse to comply with what the law says. That's like acknowledging that your source of evidence for convictions gets its information illegally, but you still choose to use it. Not that I know anyone who'd do that, but just saying.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[bdenton42]

The judges order http://www.scribd.com/doc/16501242/Gertner-Order-of-61609-re-Nesson-Tactics has some insight: "The Defendant is permitted to record the remaining depositions in any manner consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3). The parties are cautioned, however, that the decision to publicize any recording, on the internet or otherwise, may be regarded as an effort to taint the jury pool in advance of trial."

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[Rand310]

Exactly. This is part of our system. He is challenging what he feels to be an unjust law. Let it be upheld or stricken as to its judicial merits.
 
It is interesting that Massachusetts wiretapping has a two-party consent standard, whereas federal law only requires single-party consent.
 
  US Telephone Recording Laws

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[Abreu]

"In a constitutional republic like the United States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law until it is changed. But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then Thoreau says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken."

Henry David Thoreau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

Re:Can anyone say...

[HTH NE1]

• Joel Tenenbaum's deposition
  • Part 1
  • Part 2
  • Part 3
  • Part 4
  • Part 5
• Telephone conversation with Judge Gertner
• Deposition of defense copyright expert John Palfrey
  • before tweet (unknown user+pass required)
  • after tweet
• Deposition of defense peer-to-peer expert Johan Pouwelse (link unknown)

Re:Burning legal question

[TubeSteak]

If a state legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional, can that law be enforced?

Yes.
But normally someone sues immediately after the law is passed and gets a restraining order to prevent its enforcement until the State/Federal Supreme Court can decide the Constitutionality.

It seems to me that there is no accountability for the idiots who pass unconstitutional laws in the first place.

Pretty much.
All you can do is vote them out of office unless their actions rise to the level of criminality.

Re:Burning legal question

[Dragonslicer]

As far as constitutionality goes, a state law is basically the same as a federal law. A state law can be challenged and appealed up to the state's supreme court if it violates the state's constitution, or all the way to the United States Supreme Court if it violates the United States Constitution. I might be wrong on this part, but I think that if you challenge a state law based on a violation of the US Constitution, it would skip the state supreme court and go directly to the federal courts.