RIAA Suddenly Gets Camera-Shy by George Ziemann -- January 18, 2009 The RIAA is suing a teenager for a million dollars over the alleged sharing of 7 songs with a retail value of $6.93 or less. They want to make an example out of him, but they're worried that if you are allowed to watch the legal arguments over the internet, it won't be fair -- for them. The case is Sony v Tenenbaum and the real source of the problem is that the first time the RIAA contacted this kid, they asked for $5,000, and he said something like, "How about $5?" The presiding judge in the case, Nancy Gertner, rejected the RIAA's objection to the defendant having the proceedings "narrowcast" over the internet. "While the Plaintiffs object to the narrowcasting of this proceeding, .... their objections are curious. At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material. Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities. Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation. "Nothing in the local rules of the District Court of Massachusetts, the policies of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, life, or logic suggests that this motion should be denied. As Judge Weinstein noted: "No reason has been suggested to depart from the policy that, in general, the public should be permitted and encouraged to observe the operation of its courts in the most convenient manner possible, so long as there is no interference with the due process, the dignity of the litigants, jurors, and witnesses, or with other appropriate aspects of the administration of justice." ..... "Much like the proceedings before then-Judge Alito and audiovisual coverage of legal arguments in Courts of Appeals around the country, the district court hearing now at issue involves only legal argument. Moreover, coverage will be "gavel to gavel" -- streaming a complete recording of the hearing to a publicly available website -- not edited for an evening news soundbite. The public benefit of offering a more complete view of these proceedings is plain, especially via a medium so carefully attuned to the Internet Generation captivated by these filesharing lawsuits." This wasn't good enough for the RIAA, which has taken their whine and cheese over to the US Appeals Court (1st District) to stop the webcast, "so that the core interests of the parties in this case -- the need to ensure fairness to all litigants in the trial court -- can be adequately protected." A corporation, representing other corporations, is suing a teenager for a million dollars over $7 and they're worried that it won't be fair for them if you can watch. They've been running an "education campaign" for more than a half decade, but it won't be fair for them if you can watch how the legal system works in these cases and see the high, righteous moral ground the RIAA legal team works from. It won't be fair for them if you can see how convincing their evidence is. Truth is, it won't be fair for them, but only because of Harvard law professor Charles Nesson and his team of students (and professors?), who will probably out-lawyer the RIAA's gang of idiots. If Judge Gertner's order stands, Courtroom View Network will "narrowcast" the hearing to the Berkman Center website, which will make it available to the public free. Update -- January 20 (link) The RIAA shows up in appeals court and says this: "Petitioners are concerned that, unlike a trial transcript, the broadcast of a court proceeding through the internet will take on a life of its own in that forum," the RIAA wrote (.pdf) the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. "The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual. Even without improper modification, statements may be taken out of context, spliced together with other statements and broadcast (sic) rebroadcast as if it were an accurate transcript. Such an outcome can only do damage to Petitioner's case." Gee, I feel so damn sorry for them. Not. I agree that to finally get an RIAA lawyer delivering their legal logic on camera will take on a life of its own. Especially when people start putting the lie next to the admission of the truth of the opposite. Or string all the bullshit together. Yeah, that's going to happen. It's going to happen to Bush any minute now, too. And we can do it with the transcripts, too. But the ability to observe the obvious tell-tale signs that someone is lying -- video is important for that. That's what they don't want you to see. Later That Day -- Judge Gertner reschedules the hearing for February 24, points out that the RIAA's appeal only objected to "how" the hearing was broadcast, not "whether" it was broadcast.

Legal documents referred to in this story can be found at: Recording Industry vs The People Related Judge to RIAA: 'It's Terribly Critical That You Stop It'