Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.
Caveat Utilitor
"Streisand Effect"?
Not until someone replies to, "Links, please?"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Sometimes, the law is wrong.
As long as the information was recorded _in_ Federal court, on US government property, I don't think a Massachusetts statute could apply. But outside of that he's screwed.
If he acknowledges that he is violating the law, and will continue to do so regardless, he is also seemingly willing to accept any consequences that result from his actions, so I see no problem. He is partaking in Civil Disobedience. Part of that is accepting the consequences of your actions. Not that I agree or disagree with his decision. If he has a constitutional argument, maybe he'll be able to change the law, but I'm sure he realizes he's making a gamble.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Maybe so. But seriously, at some point, people have to start following the law.
I mean, campaigning for the law to change is fine. I think nearly all of us would support some kind of copyright reform. Even me, and I am by no means opposed to DRM or the idea of copyright, but reconsidering the duration seems reasonable to me.
But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid. This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws. At some point, I have to sympathize with the RIAA - they are in fact just trying to get the current laws enforced. Doesn't seem too unreasonable. They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law (since when is ignorance or "i don't agree" going to let you get away with that?), opponents who lie under oath (jammie thomas), a widespread belief that they don't deserve to get paid for their work, and more. I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it. Nesson is just being an ass if he deliberately ignores court orders.
But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid. This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.
Just how do you think bad laws get struck down without people breaking them?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.
Indeed, someone has to be willing to break a bad law, and go to court in order for it to get heard.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid. This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.
Yet the courts can't do that until someone challenges the law, and the only practical way to do that is to violate it.
So, by your standards, reform of stupid, bad laws only comes from those who refuse to be civilized. Perhaps you should be more gracious to those barbarians who would take up that fight for the betterment of society at their own risk and expense.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
>I don't see how information presented in court is somehow private information.
There are situations where disclosures can obstruct justice, harm individuals, or violate rights.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The reason given is because it may taint the jury pool. When knowing facts makes the jury unsuitable, you've got a problem (Due process arguments notwithstanding). It's also because if effective defence of this type of court action becomes widely known, the RIAA will find it harder to get their way.
But how does the RIAA's public campaign telling everyone that downloading a song is stealing and kills artists not tainting the jury pool? Why do they get to spread half-truths all day and everyone else has to follow the rules? Maybe a judge should issue a gag-order on the RIAA since they are now in court asking juries to give them $80,000 per song do they can feed the starving artists.