the court reporter sells those. they get paid per page or something like that as far as i know.
so since "RIAA-Richard" is not a nice man, he did not provided nycl with a courtesy copy back those days.
Oh, ianl so better trust nycl then me on that one
I thought court proceedings were public records -- why did it take a year for the transcript to be available?
1. The transcripts aren't free. I think this one cost around $2500.
2. For awhile the court reporter was on maternity leave. I don't know about other delays.
3. This was a gift from the Joel Fights Back" legal team. If they hadn't gotten me one, I don't know if I'd ever have seen it, because the RIAA lawyers do not have the courtesy to share transcripts with their adversaries.
To what extent do you think that the RIAA's representatives believe the case that they advance?
I don't know.
To what extent do you think that matters?
I think it matters.
Do you think that they are bad people
Yes.
or poor counsel for advancing that case?
Yes that too. I think they are a disgrace to my profession.
And then on a different tack, when one is dealing with litigants in person in a case that might have national repercussions, how can one deal effectively with those defendants if you have no confidence in their willingness to abide by confidentiality agreements and every fear that they will post the details on the internet?
I do it because it is one of the rare opportunities I have had to really do what I went to law school to do, which is to fight for what is right.
The way it came about was that in late 2004 or early 2005 I learned of these cases from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is an organization for which I have the utmost respect.
I thought to myself : "I'm a copyright lawyer, I'm a litigator, and I hate bullies. Maybe I can help some of these people."
And so I jumped into the fight with no plan other than to fight bad guys.
Then when I got the first client who wanted to fight back rather than pay extortion money -- Patti Santangelo -- I set up my blog for the purpose of offsetting the RIAA lawyers' information monopoly.
Once I'd started the blog, people started looking to me for leadership.
Financially, it is an unmitigated disaster for any lawyer who's tried to help any of these folks, and for me it has been an even greater financial burden because, in addition to the cases I've handled, the blogging, the interviews, the frequent free consultations with victims from all over the country, and my frequent communication with lawyers from all over the country representing victims, all of which are without compensation. Some of the cases I handled virtually pro bono; for most of the work I've done I've received a tiny fraction of my normal fees; for a very small portion of the work I've done I've received 75% of my normal fees.
Once Matthew Oppenheim, the ghoul who runs this operation, asked one of the defendant's lawyers, in a mocking tone, 'I don't get it, I don't see what your business plan is'. An unprincipled person like him doesn't get it. That for some people it's not about money.
I never started out on this path hoping to hurt myself financially and say "damn the torpedoes"; neither did I start out on this path thinking it was a good business plan to represent people without money who are defendants in federal lawsuits brought by large corporations.
I actually thought that once I entered the fray, the judges would immediately realize how bogus the RIAA's evidentiary and legal position is, and shut the whole thing down. That didn't happen. But anyone who knows me that when I am in a fight, I am in it for the duration.
So that's the reality. I don't care whether this causes you to approve of me, disapprove of me, laugh at me, or whatever. You asked a question. I gave you the answer.
Let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.
...or, most likely, both.
You made me smile, because I actually had that thought immediately after I'd clicked "submit". As you have correctly pointed out, the 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive.
This is Slashdot. We dislike anything that isn't free as in beer.
We don't pay for music, videos or software; we're not going to pay for a blog.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you truly want to see the RIAA stopped cold, and see rational reform in copyright law, it's people like Ray Beckerman and groups like the EFF that will probably bring that about. Helping them out now is a wise investment. I happen to find Ray's blog far more worthwhile than 99.99% of the blogs out there (99% of everything is crud, after all) and where else will you find such a substantial collection of relevant court documents? Heck, where else can the people involved in these cases, from judges on down, educate themselves as to what's really going on, with all the proper documentation? Nowhere that I've been able to find. Would you rather a judge presiding over an RIAA case receive his information from their attorneys... or from Ray's blog? Having all that data collected in one place is valuable in itself.
So yeah, I hit the Paypal button. You should too.
I just want to say that the reason I have the affiliate ads on my blog is that it seemed to me like an easy way for someone who appreciates my blog to help financially without it costing anything. I.e. you're going to buy stuff anyway, so why not buy it through one of my links and help me make a few bucks? So for those of you who are my friends, if you think there's too much advertising, tell me what you'd buy so I could target the ads better and run fewer of them.
Yes the point is to find the truth. But it is usually better to have disinterested people making the decision. If a juror were an expert in p2p file sharing software (a) he might have some bone to pick, being on one side of the issue or the other, and/or (b) he might be unduly persuasive to the other jurors. Yes, if the sole issue in the case were p2p file sharing technology (which it would never be), the ideal jury would be 6 or 12 p2p file sharing experts (which would be impossible to assemble in the real world).
In the real world, if I get 6 honest, intelligent jurors, presided over by an honest, intelligent, judge, I'll get a fair verdict every single time. Which is pretty good.
FWIW, I think you're doing a fine job Mr. Beckerman, and thanks for all your hard work on this subject. And there really are a number of peeps here on/. who really need to appreciate you more and take the time to thank you. Without you being involved, I'm sure things would have been much, much worse for our fellow netizens, and the RIAA would be out of control at this point.
Thanks, perigee369. Actually I get a lot of support from the folks at Slashdot. In the non-cyber world I've never met anyone -- other than lawyers for the big content corporations -- who is not on my side. Which makes me a little suspicious of my few cyber-detractors. In any event, since the trolling this time around centers on my supposed profiteering, although I do not think it is actually sincere, let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.
I used to really enjoy reading Ray's posts because he had a knack for translating legalese into something a bit more human-readable.
I never had the knack for that; I speak Legalese. You're just being nostalgic.
The last few articles just read like someone's copied and pasted from court filings though.
I don't really have time for witty or insightful commentary. I'm so overburdened timewise I have to prioritize, and I came to a realization in 2005 that my priority should be the one thing that I'm doing that no one else is really doing, which is getting the litigation documents online so that the rest of the world will have access to them and can provide the witty and/or insightful commentary.
Has Ray's account been hijacked,
Yes
or has he just forgotten how humans think?
Correction. I have never understood how humans think.
I'm personally rather sad we have had the first "too much of NYCL on/. posting" but I suppose fame and popularity always result a few detractors.
It's people like him that have help restore a little of my faith in the (US) justice system. When I see large rich corporations throwing cash at cases just to make it harder for their much poorer opponents to defend themselves it's good to know there are people out there who will help the underdog. These cases are particularly redolent for myself and many slashdoters as they invoke a certain "there but for the grace of God go I" feeling.
I would sincerely doubt Ray is becoming a rich (or much richer) man because of them. I would expect that most of his potential clients with any amount of money would rather pay the RIAA's pound of flesh and settle without going to court than risk several years disruption to their lives.
Most of people he will be defending will be those who cannot afford to pay and so his only hope of ever getting adequate recompense will be if courts award fees in his favor, which I believe is a bit of a lottery at the best of times - at least he believes enough in his own skills and his take on the law to take that risk.
1. Represent poor and middle class people defending cases that could be settled for $4000 or $5000, in lengthy complex cases against defendants whose primary goal is to make the cases as complex and as expensive as possible...for which you receive little compensation.
2. Oppose giant multinational corporations, joined in a cartel, who have an army of lawyers and are willing to spend tens of million dollars per year pursuing the poor and middle class people.... for which you receive little compensation. 3. Spend hours each day doing research, obtaining and reading legal documents, and writing a blog for which you receive no compensation. 4. Communicate each day with lawyers and RIAA lawsuit victims from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation. 5. Communicate each day with media from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation. 6.??? Profit!
Sorry to ask such an obvious question, but what does "making files available" mean? Say I lose my laptop or mp3 player and it is used by even a single user, or say they dump in on Limewire.... What then? What would happen if I lost in the US? (Canuck here)
Now, I occasionally have a difficult time translating from Lawyer to English, but it sounds to me like the judge is not only saying "no you can't appeal" but "making available isn't copyright infringement, and there is no wiggle room to discuss the matter further because it's obvious that it's not."
Do I have that right, NYCL?
Yes you have that right. But there's another biggy in the decision which is a little more subtly presented. The judge is also implying that even if the 'making available' issue were not on the table, he would probably be ordering a new trial because of the excessiveness of the size of the verdict.
The only example I know was the criminal trial of OJ Simpson, which was clearly mishandled by the presiding judge, and was not in federal court. The civil trial of OJ Simpson, and every other court proceeding I've seen on TV, looked exactly like the court proceedings I've seen that were not on TV.
I would like the motion to pass so I can watch the RIAA face plant as they try to maintain such flimsy cases in the face of common sense and reason.
The fact that they have stopped pursuing any additional Individual cases shows us just how futile their efforts really are... even they recognize it.
Do they have any more legs to stand on?
Yes but are you so sure they've "stopped pursuing any additional individual cases"?
Thanks, rts008. Yeah the courts are real conservative about this, and your instincts are like theirs -- that it has to be carefully regulated. For years the guidelines were in place only on an experimental basis, and used rarely. Eventually the courts came to the conclusion that it was safe if done right. And that the benefit to our society is huge.
Fear of the unknown. The more people know about what to expect in a trial V. RIAA the less they will fear it.
Lawyers know all about court and trials but, the average person knows very little about what to expect at a trial of this magnitude and they are probably scared to death of the possibility of being on the wrong side of one of these.
Perhaps people will not be so afraid to share music files after seeing this trial and that has to scare the hell out of RIAA. To think that one of these trials could actually lead to more music files being shared instead of less.
P.S. A big thanks to NYCL for all his hard work!
Thanks, GeorgeS. Another of the RIAA's biggest fears is that a publicly available videotape of the proceedings will assist defendant's lawyers in preparing for future cases, and thus reduce the defendants' cost of litigation. The RIAA lawyers' primary goal is to drive up the cost to the defendants of defending themselves. If they could have it their way, they would want every case enshrouded in an all-inclusive confidentiality order.
The jury is composed of members [...] who are basically selected because they have no special knowledge of the legal issues or of the facts
Only in the USA would somebody think that this is a good thing. Public participation in trials etc. is important, but I cannot for my life fathom how anyone would think that having people selected BECAUSE they don't know what they're doing (if you'll allow to overdramatise a bit there) would be a good idea.
I know what the idea is, of course: keeping The Government(tm) in check by having Ordinary People(tm) reach the actual verdict. But in reality, as you say, it all boils down to who's coming up with the more emotional argument.
Seriously. "Jury of your peers" makes about as much sense as requiring people to undergo "surgery by their peers" because you distrust doctors.
Personally I think the right to trial by jury is the crowning jewel in our justice system.
I don't think they'd want their mothers to see what they are doing for a living.
*back on topic*
Spoilsport.
I was under the impression that court proceedings were open to the public by default, and required extraordinary circumstances to be closed to the public.
You were under the correct impression.
Televising the court proceedings would only scale up the 'open to the public' concept IMHO
Exactly.
but I can also see some of the downside to this:
1. the tendency of our news media to spin, slant, edit, and sensationalize everything to try increasing their audience.
They can do that much easier if the public can't see what's really going on.
2. the ability to influence public opinion (due to #1 above), which can in turn influence the court's decision.
As I noted in an earlier comment, the jury basically is -- or is supposed to be -- "the public", only (a) in microcosm, and (b) with all of the actual admissible evidence in hand.
3. the whole thing turning into a media circus, as per the likes of Jerry Springer-type shows.
If you read the court papers carefully, you'll see there's no way for that to happen. The camera is invisible and doesn't affect the trial.
Without specific, strict guidelines for this, more harm than good is possible.
Well there are very specific, strict guidelines for this.
Some of those guidelines necessary could in themselves be considered unconstitutional.
??? On the one hand you're saying it needs to be regulated. On the other hand you're saying that regulating it would be unconstitutional. That is kind of illogical, I hope you realize. In any event, it is a moot point, because it is very very strictly regulated, and the regulations which are being used have not been ruled to be unconstitutional.
I don't know which side of the fence I'm on in this debate.
Sounds to me like you do know which side of the fence you're on.
In an ideal world, transparency and openness is desired.
Indeed it is.
But in this world, the chance of skewing trial results is just too high to be acceptable, IMHO.
You haven't shown us a single reason why turning on an invisible video camera would in any way skew anything.
Slashdot Mirror
the court reporter sells those. they get paid per page or something like that as far as i know. so since "RIAA-Richard" is not a nice man, he did not provided nycl with a courtesy copy back those days. Oh, ianl so better trust nycl then me on that one
You got it right.
I thought court proceedings were public records -- why did it take a year for the transcript to be available?
1. The transcripts aren't free. I think this one cost around $2500.
2. For awhile the court reporter was on maternity leave. I don't know about other delays.
3. This was a gift from the Joel Fights Back" legal team. If they hadn't gotten me one, I don't know if I'd ever have seen it, because the RIAA lawyers do not have the courtesy to share transcripts with their adversaries.
To what extent do you think that the RIAA's representatives believe the case that they advance?
I don't know.
To what extent do you think that matters?
I think it matters.
Do you think that they are bad people
Yes.
or poor counsel for advancing that case?
Yes that too. I think they are a disgrace to my profession.
And then on a different tack, when one is dealing with litigants in person in a case that might have national repercussions, how can one deal effectively with those defendants if you have no confidence in their willingness to abide by confidentiality agreements and every fear that they will post the details on the internet?
I have no idea what you are referring to.
why do you do it?
I do it because it is one of the rare opportunities I have had to really do what I went to law school to do, which is to fight for what is right.
The way it came about was that in late 2004 or early 2005 I learned of these cases from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is an organization for which I have the utmost respect.
I thought to myself : "I'm a copyright lawyer, I'm a litigator, and I hate bullies. Maybe I can help some of these people."
And so I jumped into the fight with no plan other than to fight bad guys.
Then when I got the first client who wanted to fight back rather than pay extortion money -- Patti Santangelo -- I set up my blog for the purpose of offsetting the RIAA lawyers' information monopoly.
Once I'd started the blog, people started looking to me for leadership.
Financially, it is an unmitigated disaster for any lawyer who's tried to help any of these folks, and for me it has been an even greater financial burden because, in addition to the cases I've handled, the blogging, the interviews, the frequent free consultations with victims from all over the country, and my frequent communication with lawyers from all over the country representing victims, all of which are without compensation. Some of the cases I handled virtually pro bono; for most of the work I've done I've received a tiny fraction of my normal fees; for a very small portion of the work I've done I've received 75% of my normal fees.
Once Matthew Oppenheim, the ghoul who runs this operation, asked one of the defendant's lawyers, in a mocking tone, 'I don't get it, I don't see what your business plan is'. An unprincipled person like him doesn't get it. That for some people it's not about money.
I never started out on this path hoping to hurt myself financially and say "damn the torpedoes"; neither did I start out on this path thinking it was a good business plan to represent people without money who are defendants in federal lawsuits brought by large corporations.
I actually thought that once I entered the fray, the judges would immediately realize how bogus the RIAA's evidentiary and legal position is, and shut the whole thing down. That didn't happen. But anyone who knows me that when I am in a fight, I am in it for the duration.
So that's the reality. I don't care whether this causes you to approve of me, disapprove of me, laugh at me, or whatever. You asked a question. I gave you the answer.
What do you think this is, a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
You mean it isn't? Cmdr Taco lied to me?
Let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.
...or, most likely, both.
You made me smile, because I actually had that thought immediately after I'd clicked "submit". As you have correctly pointed out, the 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive.
This is Slashdot. We dislike anything that isn't free as in beer. We don't pay for music, videos or software; we're not going to pay for a blog.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you truly want to see the RIAA stopped cold, and see rational reform in copyright law, it's people like Ray Beckerman and groups like the EFF that will probably bring that about. Helping them out now is a wise investment. I happen to find Ray's blog far more worthwhile than 99.99% of the blogs out there (99% of everything is crud, after all) and where else will you find such a substantial collection of relevant court documents? Heck, where else can the people involved in these cases, from judges on down, educate themselves as to what's really going on, with all the proper documentation? Nowhere that I've been able to find. Would you rather a judge presiding over an RIAA case receive his information from their attorneys ... or from Ray's blog? Having all that data collected in one place is valuable in itself.
So yeah, I hit the Paypal button. You should too.
I just want to say that the reason I have the affiliate ads on my blog is that it seemed to me like an easy way for someone who appreciates my blog to help financially without it costing anything. I.e. you're going to buy stuff anyway, so why not buy it through one of my links and help me make a few bucks? So for those of you who are my friends, if you think there's too much advertising, tell me what you'd buy so I could target the ads better and run fewer of them.
Mr. Beckerman, you can make me an unqualified fan if you dispense with the victim routine and address my suspicion directly.
What's your question?
Yes the point is to find the truth. But it is usually better to have disinterested people making the decision. If a juror were an expert in p2p file sharing software (a) he might have some bone to pick, being on one side of the issue or the other, and/or (b) he might be unduly persuasive to the other jurors. Yes, if the sole issue in the case were p2p file sharing technology (which it would never be), the ideal jury would be 6 or 12 p2p file sharing experts (which would be impossible to assemble in the real world).
In the real world, if I get 6 honest, intelligent jurors, presided over by an honest, intelligent, judge, I'll get a fair verdict every single time. Which is pretty good.
As I thought, when I asked you for some examples you were unable to come up with any.
We're working on it, Infoport. You're 100% right.
Mr. NYCL, Sir. Do you actually have a shining suit of armour at home?
No. Fatigues.
FWIW, I think you're doing a fine job Mr. Beckerman, and thanks for all your hard work on this subject. And there really are a number of peeps here on /. who really need to appreciate you more and take the time to thank you. Without you being involved, I'm sure things would have been much, much worse for our fellow netizens, and the RIAA would be out of control at this point.
Thanks, perigee369. Actually I get a lot of support from the folks at Slashdot. In the non-cyber world I've never met anyone -- other than lawyers for the big content corporations -- who is not on my side. Which makes me a little suspicious of my few cyber-detractors. In any event, since the trolling this time around centers on my supposed profiteering, although I do not think it is actually sincere, let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.
I used to really enjoy reading Ray's posts because he had a knack for translating legalese into something a bit more human-readable.
I never had the knack for that; I speak Legalese. You're just being nostalgic.
The last few articles just read like someone's copied and pasted from court filings though.
I don't really have time for witty or insightful commentary. I'm so overburdened timewise I have to prioritize, and I came to a realization in 2005 that my priority should be the one thing that I'm doing that no one else is really doing, which is getting the litigation documents online so that the rest of the world will have access to them and can provide the witty and/or insightful commentary.
Has Ray's account been hijacked,
Yes
or has he just forgotten how humans think?
Correction. I have never understood how humans think.
I'm personally rather sad we have had the first "too much of NYCL on /. posting" but I suppose fame and popularity always result a few detractors.
It's people like him that have help restore a little of my faith in the (US) justice system. When I see large rich corporations throwing cash at cases just to make it harder for their much poorer opponents to defend themselves it's good to know there are people out there who will help the underdog. These cases are particularly redolent for myself and many slashdoters as they invoke a certain "there but for the grace of God go I" feeling.
I would sincerely doubt Ray is becoming a rich (or much richer) man because of them. I would expect that most of his potential clients with any amount of money would rather pay the RIAA's pound of flesh and settle without going to court than risk several years disruption to their lives.
Most of people he will be defending will be those who cannot afford to pay and so his only hope of ever getting adequate recompense will be if courts award fees in his favor, which I believe is a bit of a lottery at the best of times - at least he believes enough in his own skills and his take on the law to take that risk.
1. Represent poor and middle class people defending cases that could be settled for $4000 or $5000, in lengthy complex cases against defendants whose primary goal is to make the cases as complex and as expensive as possible...for which you receive little compensation.
2. Oppose giant multinational corporations, joined in a cartel, who have an army of lawyers and are willing to spend tens of million dollars per year pursuing the poor and middle class people.... for which you receive little compensation.
3. Spend hours each day doing research, obtaining and reading legal documents, and writing a blog for which you receive no compensation.
4. Communicate each day with lawyers and RIAA lawsuit victims from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation.
5. Communicate each day with media from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation.
6.???
Profit!
Sorry to ask such an obvious question, but what does "making files available" mean? Say I lose my laptop or mp3 player and it is used by even a single user, or say they dump in on Limewire.... What then? What would happen if I lost in the US? (Canuck here)
Beats me.
There's nothing about it in the US Copyright Act.
It's just something the RIAA made up.
Now, I occasionally have a difficult time translating from Lawyer to English, but it sounds to me like the judge is not only saying "no you can't appeal" but "making available isn't copyright infringement, and there is no wiggle room to discuss the matter further because it's obvious that it's not." Do I have that right, NYCL?
Yes you have that right. But there's another biggy in the decision which is a little more subtly presented. The judge is also implying that even if the 'making available' issue were not on the table, he would probably be ordering a new trial because of the excessiveness of the size of the verdict.
Please give us a few examples, cliffski.
The only example I know was the criminal trial of OJ Simpson, which was clearly mishandled by the presiding judge, and was not in federal court. The civil trial of OJ Simpson, and every other court proceeding I've seen on TV, looked exactly like the court proceedings I've seen that were not on TV.
harassing and threatening people who can't defend themselves is worse than unethical, it is the sign of a sociopath
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
Much as I like to argue.
If a juror is an expert in p2p file sharing, he or she is not going to be accepted on a case about p2p file sharing.
I would like the motion to pass so I can watch the RIAA face plant as they try to maintain such flimsy cases in the face of common sense and reason. The fact that they have stopped pursuing any additional Individual cases shows us just how futile their efforts really are... even they recognize it. Do they have any more legs to stand on?
Yes but are you so sure they've "stopped pursuing any additional individual cases"?
I'm not
Thanks, rts008. Yeah the courts are real conservative about this, and your instincts are like theirs -- that it has to be carefully regulated. For years the guidelines were in place only on an experimental basis, and used rarely. Eventually the courts came to the conclusion that it was safe if done right. And that the benefit to our society is huge.
Fear of the unknown. The more people know about what to expect in a trial V. RIAA the less they will fear it. Lawyers know all about court and trials but, the average person knows very little about what to expect at a trial of this magnitude and they are probably scared to death of the possibility of being on the wrong side of one of these. Perhaps people will not be so afraid to share music files after seeing this trial and that has to scare the hell out of RIAA. To think that one of these trials could actually lead to more music files being shared instead of less. P.S. A big thanks to NYCL for all his hard work!
Thanks, GeorgeS. Another of the RIAA's biggest fears is that a publicly available videotape of the proceedings will assist defendant's lawyers in preparing for future cases, and thus reduce the defendants' cost of litigation. The RIAA lawyers' primary goal is to drive up the cost to the defendants of defending themselves. If they could have it their way, they would want every case enshrouded in an all-inclusive confidentiality order.
The jury is composed of members [...] who are basically selected because they have no special knowledge of the legal issues or of the facts
Only in the USA would somebody think that this is a good thing. Public participation in trials etc. is important, but I cannot for my life fathom how anyone would think that having people selected BECAUSE they don't know what they're doing (if you'll allow to overdramatise a bit there) would be a good idea. I know what the idea is, of course: keeping The Government(tm) in check by having Ordinary People(tm) reach the actual verdict. But in reality, as you say, it all boils down to who's coming up with the more emotional argument. Seriously. "Jury of your peers" makes about as much sense as requiring people to undergo "surgery by their peers" because you distrust doctors.
Personally I think the right to trial by jury is the crowning jewel in our justice system.
"Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel."
Hi Mom! I'm on TV!!!
I don't think they'd want their mothers to see what they are doing for a living.
*back on topic*
Spoilsport.
I was under the impression that court proceedings were open to the public by default, and required extraordinary circumstances to be closed to the public.
You were under the correct impression.
Televising the court proceedings would only scale up the 'open to the public' concept IMHO
Exactly.
but I can also see some of the downside to this: 1. the tendency of our news media to spin, slant, edit, and sensationalize everything to try increasing their audience.
They can do that much easier if the public can't see what's really going on.
2. the ability to influence public opinion (due to #1 above), which can in turn influence the court's decision.
As I noted in an earlier comment, the jury basically is -- or is supposed to be -- "the public", only (a) in microcosm, and (b) with all of the actual admissible evidence in hand.
3. the whole thing turning into a media circus, as per the likes of Jerry Springer-type shows.
If you read the court papers carefully, you'll see there's no way for that to happen. The camera is invisible and doesn't affect the trial.
Without specific, strict guidelines for this, more harm than good is possible.
Well there are very specific, strict guidelines for this.
Some of those guidelines necessary could in themselves be considered unconstitutional.
??? On the one hand you're saying it needs to be regulated. On the other hand you're saying that regulating it would be unconstitutional. That is kind of illogical, I hope you realize. In any event, it is a moot point, because it is very very strictly regulated, and the regulations which are being used have not been ruled to be unconstitutional.
I don't know which side of the fence I'm on in this debate.
Sounds to me like you do know which side of the fence you're on.
In an ideal world, transparency and openness is desired.
Indeed it is.
But in this world, the chance of skewing trial results is just too high to be acceptable, IMHO.
You haven't shown us a single reason why turning on an invisible video camera would in any way skew anything.