Shadowstorm
04-16-2009, 07:33 PM
Joel Tenenbaum (https://twitter.com/joelfightsback) is an individual who is being sued by the RIAA for downloading a total of seven songs from a p2p service. Let me post a brief quote from Joelfightsback.com (http://joelfightsback.com/about-the-case/):
In 2003, Joel received a notice accusing him of downloading music through the P2P service, and told him that he could settle the case for $3,500. He called the payment hotline, offered $500, and sent a money order in that amount. That offer was denied.
In 2007, a complaint showed up on his doorstep after years of silence requiring that Joel appear in court. Rather than backing down, like the other 30,000 people, Joel chose to stand his ground and elected to proceed pro se with the help of his mother.
Joel filed an answer with a counterclaim asserting abuse of federal power and that the excessive damages were unconstitutional. Joel appeared in court where the Judge ordered the parties into settlement.
In the settlement, Joel offered to settle for $5,000. The opposing counsel denied and counter-offered a settlement of $10,500 to be paid over 1 year. Joel declined.
That’s where Professor Charles Nesson and his team of passionate students come in.Now, Charles Nesson, who is the Professor of Law (at Harvard Law School), requested that the judge in Joel's case allow the court to stream the case on the Internet. The RIAA, naturally, does not want this to happen because (IMO), it would be a great tool of illumination to other interested parties, like academics, professors, etc. It would show just how the RIAA works in the courtroom - after all, they've had much practice with the previous 30,000 individuals they've sued (most of those settle. The average settlement range between $3,500 - $12,000 USD according to this site mentioned above, which is then used to sue more individuals, I suspect, and of course, not a dime ever goes to the artists whom they are supposedly representing).
Today, I learn through Ars that the appeals court has sided with the RIAA (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/appeals-court-no-webcast-for-joel-tenenbaum.ars): no streaming will be allowed:
We are mindful that good arguments can be made for and against the webcasting of civil cases. We are also mindful that emerging technologies eventually may change the way in which information—including information about court cases—historically has been imparted. Yet, this is not a case about free speech writ large, nor about the guaranty of a fair trial, nor about any cognizable constitutional right of public access to the courts. Our purview here is much more confined: this is a society dedicated to the rule of law; and if a controlling rule, properly interpreted, closes federal courtrooms in Massachusetts to broadcasting (whether over the air or via the Internet), we are bound to enforce that rule. In the last analysis, this boils down to a case about the governance of the federal courts.Adding,
"While the new technology characteristic of the Information Age may call for the replotting of some boundaries, the venerable right of members of the public to attend federal court proceedings is far removed from an imagined entitlement to view court proceedings remotely on a computer screen."Fucking cartel, I say. Ox, can you weigh in on this? What do you think?
I am sorely disappointed by this decision. Maybe one of the judges were bought? I'm not sure. I don't get their reasoning for not allowing a webcast of the trial.
In 2003, Joel received a notice accusing him of downloading music through the P2P service, and told him that he could settle the case for $3,500. He called the payment hotline, offered $500, and sent a money order in that amount. That offer was denied.
In 2007, a complaint showed up on his doorstep after years of silence requiring that Joel appear in court. Rather than backing down, like the other 30,000 people, Joel chose to stand his ground and elected to proceed pro se with the help of his mother.
Joel filed an answer with a counterclaim asserting abuse of federal power and that the excessive damages were unconstitutional. Joel appeared in court where the Judge ordered the parties into settlement.
In the settlement, Joel offered to settle for $5,000. The opposing counsel denied and counter-offered a settlement of $10,500 to be paid over 1 year. Joel declined.
That’s where Professor Charles Nesson and his team of passionate students come in.Now, Charles Nesson, who is the Professor of Law (at Harvard Law School), requested that the judge in Joel's case allow the court to stream the case on the Internet. The RIAA, naturally, does not want this to happen because (IMO), it would be a great tool of illumination to other interested parties, like academics, professors, etc. It would show just how the RIAA works in the courtroom - after all, they've had much practice with the previous 30,000 individuals they've sued (most of those settle. The average settlement range between $3,500 - $12,000 USD according to this site mentioned above, which is then used to sue more individuals, I suspect, and of course, not a dime ever goes to the artists whom they are supposedly representing).
Today, I learn through Ars that the appeals court has sided with the RIAA (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/appeals-court-no-webcast-for-joel-tenenbaum.ars): no streaming will be allowed:
We are mindful that good arguments can be made for and against the webcasting of civil cases. We are also mindful that emerging technologies eventually may change the way in which information—including information about court cases—historically has been imparted. Yet, this is not a case about free speech writ large, nor about the guaranty of a fair trial, nor about any cognizable constitutional right of public access to the courts. Our purview here is much more confined: this is a society dedicated to the rule of law; and if a controlling rule, properly interpreted, closes federal courtrooms in Massachusetts to broadcasting (whether over the air or via the Internet), we are bound to enforce that rule. In the last analysis, this boils down to a case about the governance of the federal courts.Adding,
"While the new technology characteristic of the Information Age may call for the replotting of some boundaries, the venerable right of members of the public to attend federal court proceedings is far removed from an imagined entitlement to view court proceedings remotely on a computer screen."Fucking cartel, I say. Ox, can you weigh in on this? What do you think?
I am sorely disappointed by this decision. Maybe one of the judges were bought? I'm not sure. I don't get their reasoning for not allowing a webcast of the trial.