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."
Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can anyone say... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Streisand Effect"?
Not until someone replies to, "Links, please?"
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (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:Too late (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:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (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 with the RIAA - they are in fact just trying to get the current laws enforced. Doesn't seem too unreasonable. They face people like Nesson who blatantly ignore the law (since when is ignorance or "i don't agree" going to let you get away with that?), opponents who lie under oath (jammie thomas), a widespread belief that they don't deserve to get paid for their work, and more. I don't personally understand why these sorts of court actions need to be secret, but I assume there is a reason for it. Nesson is just being an ass if he deliberately ignores court orders.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:1, Insightful)
The rule of law is a limitation on government, not on citizens. It means that we are ruled by laws, rather than being ruled by individual men. The government must never depart from that ideal - in both theory and practice, it must rule according to the written laws and not according to the whims of the individuals employed as agents of the government. The rule of law has nothing to do with citizens and their choice to obey or disobey the written law - it has only to do with how the government rules in their cases.
Check wikipedia - it has it right.
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (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.
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:
1) somebody's right to limit others' free speech involved in suing (in front of a jury eventually?) to protect their claimed legal copyright to limit others' free speech, and
2)free speech itself.
Re:RIAA is right on this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
In some instances, state substantive statutes can apply in federal court if the cause of action giving rise to the lawsuit is a state statute and the federal court has jurisdiction only through diversity of the parties. However, since this case arises out of copyright, there is federal subject matter jurisdiction rather than diversity jurisdiction, so you're right: a Massachusetts statute should not apply in this case.
Really! And RIAA is a breath of honesty? (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI, only 12 out of 50 states forbid recording a conversation you have without the other party knowing. From URL http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm [callcorder.com] :
In the vast majority of the US, what he has done is perfectly acceptable, at least with regards to letting the other party know or not know about the conversation being recorded. Just because your personal ethical framework doesn't agree, this doesn't make Nesson a douchebag.
A lot of people think RIAA is "slimy" for all of the collateral damage they are causing to society while trying to preserve their dying business model. Personally, I'm undecided whether their actions are actually unethical --- but I'm certain that they are dangerous and detrimental to society.
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.