RIAA Tries to Stop Internet Broadcasting of File-Sharing Trial

Argues that since would be broadcast over the defendant’s server would constitute a conflict of interest and unfairly benefit his side in the case.

I’ve been following the RIAA’s case against accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum pretty closely and yet, it still amazes even me the lengths that the music industry will go to make up arguments to win its case against him.

On the one hand it has said that it’s sole purpose in suing file-sharers around the country has been to educate them and others about its illegality, but on the other it has steadfastly opposed every attempt by Charles Nesson, Joel Tenennbaum’s counsel in the case, to broadcast the trial over the Internet.

Late last week District Court Judge Nancy Gertner, the judge hearing the case, decided to authorize Courtroom View Network (CVN) to broadcast the trial over the Internet.

"In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet Generation — the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general, and the internet in particular, as commonplace," reads Judge Gertner’s opinion. "It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if not almost exclusively, over the internet. Consistent with the nature of these file-sharing cases, and the identity of so many of the Defendants, this case is one that has already garnered substantial attention on the internet."

Perhaps uneasy that the trial would finally illustrate just how flawed the RIAA’s arguments are, it has now decided to appeal that decision to the First District U.S. Court of Appeals.

"Rather than providing a ‘public benefit’ to the generation most impacted by RIAA litigation, the district court’s chosen means to achieve this so-called ‘public benefit’ is deeply flawed – indeed it is a means that appears specifically designed to benefit the Defendant and his counsel to the detriment of Petitioners," reads their petition.

The RIAA apparently doesn’t like the fact that the trial would be streamed over a Harvard Berkman Center server and onto the defendant’s website since it is is “specifically designed to promote Defendant’s interests in this case.”

Counters Nesson, “Perhaps the RIAA would like to run the gavel-to-gavel feed on their website as well.”

“We are working hard to ensure that the Berkman Center is not the exclusive distributor of the content, and we welcome the RIAA’s help in finding additional websites through which the proceedings can be viewed.  Other parties have approached and are planning to narrowcast the feed."

The RIAA also oddly argues that broadcasting a single trial "would not put the spotlight on the courts’ decisions in these cases nationwide or even the single decision in this case. Instead it would likely serve to highlight selectively the arguments of a single counsel in a limited part of a single case."

“If the RIAA’s position is to educate people about the business and legal climate of the music industry, it is unclear to us why they are appealing this decision," continues Nesson’s response. "Further, we believe that the true public interest in this case is permitting civil involvement in courtroom proceedings. Our case is fundamentally about the ‘so-called Internet generation,’ and it is seemingly appropriate that such an opportunity be made available to these individuals."

[email protected]