Judge Approves Public Broadcast Of RIAA Lawsuit
from the educate-us,-please dept
Harvard Law prof. Charlie Nesson has been leading a case challenging the constitutionality of a core part of the RIAA’s continuing lawsuit strategy. Late last year, he asked a judge if the trial itself could be broadcast live over the internet, noting that the RIAA claimed the lawsuits were part of its education campaign, so he couldn’t see why they would object. Of course, they did object, but the judge has sided with Nesson, and the court proceedings will be broadcast live next Thursday, January 22nd on the Berkman Center’s website. The judge repeated Nesson’s points in responding to the RIAA’s objection, noting that the RIAA’s objection seemed “curious” considering its previous claims of this being an educational campaign. Nesson and his law students had clearly done their homework on the judge. As the article notes, in 2007, the judge (Nancy Gertner) had testified on Capitol Hill on the importance of broadcasting more trials over the internet and television.
Filed Under: charles neeson, constitutionality, fines, joel tenenbaum, lawsuits, penalties
Companies: riaa
Comments on “Judge Approves Public Broadcast Of RIAA Lawsuit”
Will Techdirt...
…provide a stream or link when this glorious day happens?
Re: Will Techdirt...
You lazy fuck. Just go to the Berkman Center’s website on the 22nd AND FIND IT.
Re: Re: Will Techdirt...
Well, duh, genius.
The request was for those that won’t be seeing this blog as it will be well buried on the 22nd.
Of course, the next time I won’t think about others. How rude of it was for me suggest the link.
Re: Re: Re: Will Techdirt...
He or she uses ‘anonymous’ for a reason. Notice the ‘civil’ discourse, the intelligent thought, the consideration of others that went into his/her post. No need ‘educating’ others and making their lives a bit easier. Its far more effective to curse and make you feel bad because you asked a simple question. Ah, the joys of internet blogs. Always an a$$hole to help steer the conversation forward…
Re: Re: Re:2 Will Techdirt...
while I agree that some anonymous people are rude, not all are.
pleas keep that in mind.
Re: Re: Re:3 Will Techdirt...
I’d also like to point out that “AJ” is about as meaningless a name, for our purposes, as “Anonymous Coward.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Will Techdirt...
So would almost any name, unless it’s very very unusual. If I post as Bob Smith, that gives you no more information than “anonymous coward” even if it’s my real name.
It’s the repeated, consistent and unique use of a name that gives it any meaning in contexts such as these. For example, the name “nasch” tells you nothing about my identity, but I’m the only one using it on this forum. So if you notice me being a dick, or being insightful, or whatever, you can apply that judgment to my future posts.
To make a long story short, if he’s the only one going by AJ around here, that’s as good as it gets and much better than anonymous coward.
Charlie Nesson “Your my new HERO! Thank you
TAKE THAT RIAA!
Now lets see them go down in a blaze of Humiliation!
Not 1 cent to the RIAA or anyone/everyone whom supports them!
that should be very interesting.
Exactly, #2. I will never buy another CD as long as I live. Further, I’ve convinced most of my family, friends and co-workers to do the same by showing them the RIAA tactics and that none of their money actually goes to the artists but rather the thugs that make up RIAA (looking especially hard in your direction, Sony).
NEVER PAY FOR MUSIC!!! EVER!!!
Support your favorite bands by going to their concerts and buying their merchandise at the concert. Not by buying their CDs.
Re: Re:
If you like CDs, by all means buy them – from independent artists. If you want to boycott the RIAA labels, then boycott all their music regardless of format, rather than boycotting a format regardless of the label/artist.
Don't get your hopes up.
Don’t get your hopes up for seeing this trial. My guess is that the RIAA will find a reason to drop the case before the first picture flows across the Internet. The RIAA has a history of dropping suits when they think they will lose. They seem to think they will lose whenever they face a serious legal defense. Obviously in this case they are facing a very serious defense team.
Remember, the RIAA’s program was never based on strong legal arguments. It was and always has been about using the legal system to shake down poor saps who can’t afford to put up a good defense.
Not Quite The Same
From the Article: “Trial in the case is scheduled for March 30. Cameras have only been granted for the 2 p.m. Eastern, Jan. 22 hearing.”
So we’re only seeing the hearing on the 22nd, not the actual trial itself (at least, that hasn’t been determined yet). Also, i’m still unclear on exactly how this ‘narrowcasting’ is going to work. I haven’t been able to find anything on their distribution plans, particularly nothing that says ‘free’ or ‘available to everyone.’ I’d love to be proven wrong, but…
Views of the live broadcast will be sued by the RIAA. Charlie Nesson, his class and his school will be sued by the RIAA for distributing the copyrighted material that will be presented as evidence in the course of the trail.
Charlie Nesson, his family, his dog and family friends are in the RIAA sites. Maybe the RIAA will sent a group of it’s associates to ‘meet and greet’ them.
Re: Re:
It’s SIGHTS not SITES. GAWD!
Re: Re: Re:
Its GOD, not GAWD! GeeBus Creeps
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes, more valuable input from this troll… glad he/she is driving the conversation forward in such an effective thoughtful manner. What next, napkin tips at dinner?
Re: Re: Re:
Ironic, considering “site unseen” is almost universally mixed up and typed “sight unseen” instead. Basically, given any homophone, it’s guaranteed to be used incorrectly at least half the time. 🙂
Hooray!
Wondering...
There is much ballyhoo in the MSM about RIAA not pursuing individual lawsuits anymore. Could this be in anticipation of getting their collective rears kicked in this lawsuit? If I remember correctly, they are switching tactics to bully ISPs into doing their enforcement for them. One can only hope the investigative techniques so called into question, as will be in this lawsuit, will stop them on that front too.
kind of off topic, but it has always bothered me that people still post anonymously here… you don’t have to register, no checks are made, you just barf up whatever moniker you want and it takes it. Anyone who can’t be bothered to do that probably isn’t writing anything intelligent enough to be worth reading.
Re: Re:
and yet because no registering is required other people can post under your name.
*for those who don’t get it, I am not Easily Amused.
Re: Re:
“Anyone who can’t be bothered to do that probably isn’t writing anything intelligent enough to be worth reading.”
I agree 100%.
George Bush
I think that I will send this into my school newspaper and see if they will print an article on it since the paper is released every Wednesday.
For Sale
Can’t wait to make bootleg copies of the trial streaming video and sell it on the internet =}
could be interesting
This is a hearing on a motion to dismiss, not a trial. But it should prove interesting for those who follow this issue. In a motion to dismiss, there are no factual issues, no evidence, no witnesses, it’s pure law. Nesson has some very creative (and in my view, at least some convincing) arguments. The RIAA will be defending its longstanding positions, and from the tone of this order, the judge already seems a bit skeptical of their motives, if not their legal position. Some of the hearing may revolve around technical rules for pleading claims of copyright infringement but I think for the most part the hearing will be about the competing legal theories. If the judge is engaged and prepared, both lawyers will be hammered with questions as they try to persuade the court to adopt their position and reject that of the other side.
If the RIAA’s (il)legal strategies are found in this thing to be unconstitutional, does that mean that criminal charges can then be filed against them and have a real chance of sticking? I wonder…
Oooooooooo if only I didn’t have to work that day. Even if it is just a hearing the case will be high profile. The RIAA will be highly exposed and people will be able to see their faces. It’s one thing to lie to the cort and anouther to lie to the public…
Nesson and poker
I just realized that this is the same Charles Nesson who advocates poker as a skill game, an issue dear to my heart. I work for a poker media company, so having him on our side is a big deal, and I had a lot of respect for him because of his stance. Now that I realize that he’s pwning the RIAA, as well, I kinda want to have his babies.
Nesson founded the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society, which we talked about at my site.
I never look at online handles.
That’s why I never bother to post under one. If a site requires me to register, I just visit less and never post. But I barely post anyway.
This site serves a lot of people. Some are trolling. But using technology to control people’s behavior seems to oppose some of the principles this site endorses.
Just because some people misuse something doesn’t mean that thing is bad.
RIAA Broadcast
To Tech Dirt thanks for making this more public – your blog was picked up as a link @ dslreports.com. Though I try to read Tech Dirt as often possible.
Re:
“site unseen”
That’s really unusual. I didn’t ever realize that “sight unseen” was wrong. I always see it spelled that way but I usually spot those kinds of things. nasch, you are smart.
Thought: a class action lawsuit as countersuit against the RIAA for frivolous lawsuits–including, as class, all those sued to date by the RIAA. we can haz?