5107955
story
Comments: 138 +- Your Rights Online: RIAA Seeks Web Removal of Courtroom Audio on Monday July 06, @04:48PM
Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday July 06, @04:48PM
from the afraid-people-might-see-what-they-are-up-to dept.
from the afraid-people-might-see-what-they-are-up-to dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
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."
Related Stories
There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.
-- Larry Wall in <1992Aug19.041614.6963@netlabs.com>
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [arstechnica.com], but you still choose to use it. Not that I know anyone who'd do that, but just saying.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see how information presented in court is somehow private information.
It should simply be public information to begin with.
If all court information was private, what stops someone from being sentenced with this private information?
IE: Defendant is charged with a crime, court starts trial, no information on trial, bam -- defendant is guilty ??
So why so much privacy?
RIAA trying to hide the payouts or what?
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
>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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But this isn't one of the.
WIKILEAKS!!!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Still there are many cases where court information should be kept private. Thus the mechanisms for keeping information private at some times while generally having the proceedings be public should be put and kept in place. Our current US system could use a reworking on those grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Informative)
The judges order http://www.scribd.com/doc/16501242/Gertner-Order-of-61609-re-Nesson-Tactics [scribd.com] 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."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 w
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Informative)
"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) [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a Federal Court.
The RIAA is attempting to get it to enforce a State law. Not a Federal Law.
Nesson is saying that he thinks the State law is so badly written that it is unconstitutional on its face. But that doesn't matter. Because...
The Judge is saying that Nesson has to comply specifically with the Federal law in this regard, which does not prohibit what he has been doing so long as he does it according to its provisions. And the Judge tells him what he already knows: he will be in deep doo-d
The soap box (Score:2, Insightful)
While your three boxes are neat and tidy, there is one box you've left out that everyone in a representative democracy is supposedly guaranteed above all others - the soap box.
This one is most important here, since the jury hasn't yet been formed, there is nothing in the legislative pipeline that will likely reform copyright if some person or persons is elected, and of course killing people or threatening to do so is way out of line in this case.
Basically what is happening seems to be a conflict between:
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He may be conducting what would be a violation of the Massachusetts privacy law.
However, Massachusetts' laws do not govern the proceedings of federal courts, or courtroom activities. Because the state legislature has no legal jurisdiction in a federal court room.
A state can no more ban a practice like recording in a federal court room, than they can make a law that no rulings by the court may undermine or overrule laws of the state of Massachusetts.
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Can anyone say... (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone say... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Streisand Effect"?
Not until someone replies to, "Links, please?"
Parent
Re:Can anyone say... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.
Sure it does. You've just got to somehow manage to fit the entire Internet in the bag with the cat.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does. You've just got to somehow manage to fit the entire Internet in the bag with the cat.
Perhaps some sort of Visual Basic GUI?
Re: (Score:2)
If it works for CSI, it'll work for me!
No wait, Visual Basic GUIs are only good for tracing IP addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Serious question, would we ever know if the cat did go back in the bag?
If you truly understood the metaphor, it wouldn't matter if it did.
The bag is secrecy, the cat is the secret. Once the secret is out, it is known and can never again be unknown. Even if a shell game was performed with identical bags, you'd still know about the cat.
If you can see the cat being put back in the bag and not know what's in the bag,
If there's anything MAFIAA are known for... (Score:2)
If there's anything MAFIAA are know for, it's fighting a lost cause.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the internet -- the cat never goes back in the bag.
Are you sure? There must be dozens of counterexamples on Lolcats.
Section Five Hundred Four Says (Score:3, Interesting)
second of about 30,000 cases
Let's assume that's 20 songs per case on unrelated albums. According to section 504.c.1 [copyright.gov] 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 [arstechnica.com] 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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Burning legal question (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Gotta give them credit (Score:3, Funny)
They are consistent if nothing else.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Coming up next, RIAA applies for patent for human voice. All speech will be licensed, $0.99 a sentence.
If that happens, I'd say the vow of silence will come back into vogue very quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If that happens, I'd say the vow of silence will come back into vogue very quickly.
Too late. 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence is copyright 1952 by John Cage (deceased 1992), and infringing derivative works of it of varying lengths have been successfully prosecuted by his estate on more than one occasion, and you can expect them still to be until 2047 (1952 + 95 because 1952 1978).
Re: (Score:2)
4 minutes 33 seconds of silence is copyright 1952 by John Cage
And it's a hell of a lot better than the drivel they call music these days...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My middle finger is royalty-free.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Coming up next, RIAA applies for patent for human voice. All speech will be licensed, $0.99 a sentence.
That seems like a very good idea, because human voice is an invention of nature and since nature is not present the RIAA can be appointed as its representative, like the laws in some countries where if no one claims copyright for a work some benevolent copyright managing organization takes hold of it so that no bad people pirate it until the real owner comes and takes it, although often when the real owner comes to take it the benevolent organization may not give the copyright back, but that's okay since th