RSSFate of webcast RIAA trial to be decided today
By Tim Conneally | Published June 5, 2009, 1:32 PM
In just a matter of hours, accused file sharer Joel Tenenbaum and his Harvard Law legal team will appear in the Boston Federal Courthouse for a hearing to decide the outcome of all his constitutional counterclaims against the Recording Industry Association of America.
Tenenbaum is being sued for more than one million dollars by the music industry for illegally downloading seven music files over P2P service KaZaa more than six years ago, when Joel was a teenager. Now a Boston University grad student backed by Charles Nesson of the Berkman Center and a legal counsel of nine Harvard law students, Tenenbaum stands at the center of a trial that has come to represent the "average David [versus] the corporate Goliath."
Among the topics that are to be covered today, the issue of webcasting the case on the Courtroom View Network could either be drawn to an abrupt end, or taken to an even higher court. In January, Team Tenenbaum moved to have the trial broadcast on the Web, as it is an issue of public interest. The District Court approved the motion, but the RIAA did not want the case to be watched by the denizens of the Web, so it appealed, and the Court of Appeals agreed with the RIAA, and found the move to be "palpably incorrect."
Team Tenenbaum filed a cert petition to the Supreme Court regarding the webcast, and filed a motion to stay the case until the Supreme Court could review the facts. Today, we will find out how the case will move forward.
"This issue is about Joel's Constitutional right to a public trial in today's digital world," Charles Nesson said. "It is my ethical duty as an officer of the court to give the highest court of the land the opportunity to weigh in on the decision."
The RIAA mafia is threatening talk radio stations that don't even play their lousy copyrighted music! Those a--holes told KSCO AM 1080 not to stream their music free yap sessions on the internet, despite the fact that the station is the holder of those copyrights. Paying to mob for the right to stream your own material, is no different than giving protection money to organized crime, so they don't burn down your business...
Score: 0
|I forgot to say...
If the judges are smart during the hearing they'll realize there is a little part in the Constitution called the Eighth amendment. It deals with excessive fines/punishments which this case CLEARLY is.
Score: 0
|I hope Mr. Tenenbaum is able to get a jury trial for this civil case. If this is then I would hope his Harvard Law legal team is aware of Jury Nullification. http://fija.org/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification for more info.
As far as the RIAA...what a bunch of pansies. So they don't want this trial to be public/broadcast on the Internet, huh? That's fascinating how all of a sudden they are pro-privacy when it comes to their situation!
Score: 0
|This guy downloaded 7 tracks. This is equivalent to stealing 7 CDs (or perhaps just the one CD if it were an album). Since when is a $1,000,000 fine acceptable as punishment?
Score: 3
|since it says so right there in fine print:) ... jk, its beyond retarded
Score: 1
|You know NOTHING about the legal system do you dude (Paul Skinner)? You actually believe that people are sued for actual cost of items stolen or costs incurred ? Pretty naive...
Score: 0
|If this article is to be read on face value, he has not "made available" these songs to anyone else (i.e. uploading, distribution to others), only downloaded them for himself.
If he stole the same 7 songs from a shop, there's no way in hell he'd be threatened with a fine for $1,000,000. Yes, it'd probably be a fine more than the cost of the CDs, which I agree with as punishment for crime. However, $1,000,000 for 7 songs is ludicrous.
You starting to see my point yet?
Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it a greater crime.
Score: 0
|Exactly. They are obviously trying to make a example out of him. 1st what are the 7 tracks he downloaded? 2nd, did they prove he shared them. 3rd How the heck can they justify 1 mil fine?! From what i read he originally offered $500, but they didn't respond. He went up to 5,000 just to close the issue but still nothing? Something is awry. I do agree he should pay fine if they can prove he did what they say he did, but 1 mil?! C'mooon!!!
Score: 0
|This is going to be a landmark battle in the war between content providers and content users.
I'm literally holding my breath, waiting for answers on this case.
G.C. Hutson
http://www.sadien.com
Score: 3
|This pr!ck oughta be in camp Gitmo, it's no longer an issue of whether he may have downloaded some Musak, indeed it is quite irrelevant!!!
That he, and his lefty campus mates DARE challenge this wonderful thing we have warrants so much more than the gentle gesture of a gracious waterboard.
Score: 0
|You are funny! The real Dan Glickman used to be a left wing Democratic congressman. He supported all kinds of communist BS like the fairness doctrine (censorship) and gun laws that would make Adolf Hitler proud of him...
Score: 0
|