Harvard Prof Wants to Broadcast RIAA Case on Internet

posted by soulxtc in file sharing

File motion asking judge to allow audio-visual coverage of the motion and trial proceedings in the case against accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum.

Today, Professor Charles Nesson and his team of Harvard Law students filed a motion to broadcast courtroom coverage of the trial on the Internet, which is traditionally prohibited. More specifically, Nesson and his students are hoping to allow audio-visual coverage of the motion and trial proceedings. Nesson is defending Joel Tenenbaum, who has been sued by the RIAA for $1,050,000 for allegedly downloading making available 7 songs in a shared folder when he was 17 years old.

“The judicial process is essentially an exercise in civil discourse,” said Nesson. “Given the keen interest of the diverse parties following this litigation closely, and the potential learning value of this case to a broad audience beyond, this case presents an ideal instance in which judicial discretion should be exercised under the auspices of the rule to admit Internet to the courtroom.”

Despite the RIAA’s announcement last week that it is dropping its legal assault, it has not dismissed any of its existing cases, such as Tenenbaum’s. The RIAA's attorneys will almost certainly oppose Nesson's motion to allow the case to be broadcast on the Internet.

“What this underscores is that this case is about more than just music,” said Debbie Rosenbaum, one of Nesson’s students. “It’s about embracing digital natives in environments that have traditionally been closed off to them and challenging antiquated systems have yet to catch up to the twenty-first century.”

It would certainly be an interesting step forward for the judicial process and solidify the public nature of our courts system in the 21st century. Many cases have a very real impact on us all, yet distance and accessibility prevents us from observing them first hand.

Allowing the case to be broadcast on the Internet would be an important milestone for the judicial process and would no doubt reassert the publics' role as observers of the administration of justice in this country.

With the market value of 7 songs from iTunes being $6.93, Nesson has said the RIAA tactics are "a shake-down, it’s an extortion, it’s a blight and its an insult to the Federal Courts and the idea of law and to the poor people who have to work as the cogs of this administration making this machinery work.”

The counterclaim he is making is that these lawsuits blur the distinction between civil law which is design to compensate for losses, and criminal law which seeks to punish and deter.

Ray Beckerman of Recording Industry vs the People has noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that "compensatory damages are intended to redress a plaintiff’s concrete loss" which in this case is a mere 35 cents - 70 cents minus 35 saved for not having to distribute it - per each illegally downloaded song. At most 10:1 means $3.50 in damages for each song or a grand total of $24.50 instead of the $1,050,000 the RIAA is seeking.

Original here