RIAA Seeks Web Removal of Courtroom Audio 138
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."
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:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:1, Informative)
It's not quite the same. Nesson is saying that the law is unconstitutional and is challenging it. By doing so, if they choose to prosecute, he can get the law changed/repealed.
Re:They probably want to get a license fee for it. (Score:3, Informative)
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."
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]
Re:Can anyone say... (Score:5, Informative)
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]
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.
Re:Burning legal question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (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-doo if his publishing of these matters makes it difficult to seat an unbiased jury. What the Judge has NOT said, in a VERY LOUD WAY, is also important: there was no mention at all of the Massachusetts law that the RIAA states Nesson is violating. Federal Judge, Federal Court: Federal law trumps State law. That's as it should be.
Basically the RIAA does not have an argument here that they can bring before the Federal Court. They could charge Nesson in a State Court with violating State law. That would lead to a hell of mess with regard to jurisdiction between the Federal Government and the State... in 225+ years, the Feds and the States have worked very hard together to avoid having to face that kind of mess. No one wants to go there. Some things are best left undefined, such as lines of sovereignty and jurisdiction between Federal agencies and the States that are hosting them.