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.

[Gat0r30y]

âoeI certainly donâ(TM)t agree that I am violating any law.â

And his justification:

âoeThat is so outrageously unconstitutional that I would prefer myself to honor the United States Constitution and take my chances that recording a conversation with a judge in a federal case and opposing lawyers is somehow in violation of a Massachusetts statute that makes me a felon,â Nesson said.

While I can certainly see how perhaps there are cases where this sort of behavior would indeed be very bad, in this particular case I think Nesson is right.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[TooMuchToDo]

Sometimes, the law is wrong.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[bdenton42]

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.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[omeomi]

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.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[IamTheRealMike]

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.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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?

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.

[Gat0r30y]

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.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[HTH NE1]

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.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[fishbowl]

>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.

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:RIAA is right on this one.

[SplashMyBandit]

Consider past history. If people obeyed all laws, no matter how ridiculous, then there would be no USA (the separatists defied the dictates of Britain). At one time in Europe the Church had enforceable legal powers which didn't work so well for Galileo and others. The Civil Rights movement in the 60's was founded on disobedience (breaking laws) to highlight how laws were unjustly hurting the progression of society.

Today is no different (present history). You can be pro-business without having to accept and obey laws that a large number of people consider as detrimental to society as a whole. The ability to share 'digitally' has removed the barriers that physical sharing required of 'property'. Sharing music and movies ought to be as illegal as it is to read a book or newspaper in your local library. The reality is that RIAA and MPAA are simply Luddites resisting inevitable change whereby the middleman are removed between the producers (bloggers and musicians) and consumers.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[EdIII]

This is why we have courts that can strike down bad laws.

How does a court do that? I am not gay, and have not been harmed by any laws that restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman. How do I have legal standing to strike down those laws with a court case? It's A vs. B. Who is the A and who is the B?

Courts don't strike down "bad laws". People that have been harmed by "bad laws" get prosecuted and appeal their cases based on the incorrectness and/or unconstitutionality of the law that was applied against them. It's more often than not done this way. Somebody has to be harmed first.

Perhaps you are thinking about the legislative branch and that politicians can champion their cause and change the laws outside of the courts.

But in any civilized society the rule of law must hold. Yes, even when the law is stupid.

At one point Kings could just throw someone away into cells with deplorable conditions without any due process. I am sure they considered their society "civilized". Anytime someone says a society is civilized I tend to think it is a value judgment.

When laws are unjust, do not represent people fairly, favor one race over another, are abused, etc. it is the DUTY of a citizen to fight such laws tooth and nail. If that means ignoring them or violating them, so be it. Sometimes that is the only way to challenge a law within society.

According to your logic, African-Americans should have just kept away from the Whites-Only drinking fountains, since that was the civilized thing to do and they should respect "stupid" laws.

The actions of Nesson are irrelevant to your arguments. It does not matter what laws are being broken, your claims that laws must be followed blindly is shortsighted and more than a little offensive to those who feel wronged by unjust laws.

I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it.

You may trust that the government has our best interests, but I do not. My position should not be considered unreasonable either. Having a highly transparent government is a safety feature against corruption and abuses.

What you or I think about Nesson does not matter, and I will not state whether or not I agree with his actions. I simply take issue with your assertion that we should always follows laws regardless. I choose what laws to follow. I don't hide either. I look forward to the day when I can confront it in a courtroom. However, until then I must wait since my only other option is to rely and have "faith" in my legislators.

Re:RIAA is right on this one.

[ae1294]

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.

Too late

[clang_jangle]

It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.

Re:Can anyone say...

[HTH NE1]

"Streisand Effect"?

Not until someone replies to, "Links, please?"

Section Five Hundred Four Says

[eldavojohn]

second of about 30,000 cases

Let's assume that's 20 songs per case on unrelated albums. According to section 504.c.1 each work can cost the defendent between $750 and $30,000. And if the first trial was any indication, $30,000 per song is actually the low end once you've gotten past lawyer fees. Ok so by the letter of the law the RIAA is looking to get anywhere from $450 million to $18 billion. I hope to god that Nesson stops upsetting the court and sets some better precedent than the first case. I don't care if he wants to post courtroom audio. That's a great idea and I appreciate where his heart is but that's not what this is about! I do care that he works to either reduce these unrealistic damage amounts or redefine copyright violation. So far he's just been really good at upsetting people--and not the right people!

when dealing with legal issues

[Anonymous Coward]

One is well advised not to fuck with harvard, espescially when they're openly defying law. I've got a feeling Nesson knows exactly what he's doing.

Burning legal question

[JobyOne]

I gots one! I didn't read TFA, but this question still burns hot in my brain-mind.

If a state legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional, can that law be enforced? Let's say a state legislature passes a law stating that shoplifters must have their hands chopped off, is it now legal to start choppin' hands? If it is legal to start choppin' hands, whose heads will get chopped once it gets to federal court to be overturned as cruel and unusual?

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

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.

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)