Appeals Court Blocks Webcasting of File-Sharing Trial

[DaBees-Knees]

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/85994/appeals-court-blocks-webcasting-of-file-sharing-trial/

Note - I have edited this. Go to the link if you wish to see the full version

A funny thing happened today. The RIAA managed to keep its copyright infringement case against accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum out of the public eye and in the secretive confines of a federal courthouse in Massachusetts in contradiction of its own oft repeated mantra that it’s only suing people to educate the public. Harvard Professor Charles Nesson and his team of Harvard Law students filed a motion back on Dec 26th of last year to broadcast courtroom coverage of the file-sharing trial on the Internet, which is traditionally prohibited. Nesson is defending Joel Tenenbaum, who has been sued by the RIAA for $1,050,000 for allegedly downloading making available 7 songs in a shared folder when he was 17 years old. “The judicial process is essentially an exercise in civil discourse,” said Nesson. “Given the keen interest of the diverse parties following this litigation closely, and the potential learning value of this case to a broad audience beyond, this case presents an ideal instance in which judicial discretion should be exercised under the auspices of the rule to admit Internet to the courtroom.” District Court Judge Nancy Gertner, the judge hearing the case, then decided on Jan 21st of this year to authorize Courtroom View Network (CVN) to webcast the trial. “In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet Generation — the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general, and the Internet in particular, as commonplace,” read Judge Gertner’s opinion. “It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if not almost exclusively, over the Internet.” Judge Gertner also makes a point of castigating the RIAA for attempting to prevent broadcasting the trial over the Internet being that it claims the whole purpose of suing file-sharers is to educate them that it’s illegal. The RIAA quickly filed a petition to prohibit its broadcast, objecting to the fact that the trial would be streamed by the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society website, which was founded by Charles Nesson, who’s representing Tenenbaum in the case, since the site is “specifically designed to promote Defendant’s interests in this case.” Today the First District U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Gertner erred in allowing the case to be webcast on the Internet for the simple reason that a 1990 Massachusetts state law expressly forbids “webcasting and other forms of broadcasting (whether over the air or via the Internet)” to occur in federal courthouses there.

Cites 1990 Massachusetts law which says that “no person shall take any photograph, make any recording, or make any broadcast by radio, television, or other means, in the course of or in connection with any proceedings” of the court, but ruling notes the law needs to be amended for the modern age if the justice system is to be perceived as fair, honest and wishes to be respected by the public at large.

It seems that yet once again the RIAA don't want their methods put under the spotlight by the public at large.

[GhostShip]

Of  course they don't want the US public to see them bullying this kid, shame on these extortionists and shame on the judge for giving special privileges to the RIAA.

Now I hope its finally clear that these trials are not about scaring folks off the filesharing networks but just petty mafia style shake downs and legal bullying.