RIAA Suit Defendant Wants Net Access For Case
- by Wendy Davis @wendyndavis, December 29, 2008
The record industry's case against Joel Tenenbaum began online, when he allegedly shared tracks on a peer-to-peer network. Now, Tenenbaum says the case should play itself out online,
with a Webcast of the trial proceedings. "Net access will allow an intelligent public domain to shape itself by attending and engaging in a public trial of issues conflicting our society," Tenenbaum's lawyer argued in a motion filed with the court. "Net access will allow an intelligent public domain to shape itself by attending and engaging a public trial prosecuted by a dying CD industry against a defendant who did what comes naturally to digital kids."
The Recording Industry Association of America intends to indicate to Tenenbaum's lawyers that it will oppose the motion. A spokesperson from the RIAA declined to comment for this article.
The RIAA filed suit against Tenenbaum last year, accusing the Massachusetts resident of having shared seven tracks on Kazaa when he was a teenager. Harvard Law School Prof. Charles Nesson, founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, took up Tenenbaum's case and, along with law students, has publicized key issues in the case online by launching the Facebook group Joel Fights Back Against RIAA, a Twitter feed and a " blog.
The RIAA said earlier this month that it will no longer sue individuals suspected of file-sharing, but will instead work with Internet service providers to sanction users outside of court. But cases that are already in the system, such as the lawsuit against Tenenbaum, are expected to continue.
Tenenbaum's latest motion specifically asks Federal District Court Judge Nancy Gertner to "admit the Internet to the courtroom" by allowing the New York-based company Courtroom View Network to Webcast the proceedings. The motion notes that court proceedings are typically open to the public.
Some judges have previously allowed TV cameras in the courtroom, but only a few courts have yet embraced Webcasts. But the practice appears to be gaining acceptance. Tenenbaum's motion alleges that in the last year, at least five courts have allowed Webcasts of a portion of trial proceedings. In addition, some state appellate courts allow Internet broadcasts of their proceedings, which typically involve lawyers making oral arguments, but don't include the testimony of witnesses.
Both Directv and the RIAA have sued many people now. Both Directv and the RIAA knew not all were guilty though and still accepted settlement money and a gag settlement. Where people were innocent, the US Department of Justice should have protected them from such a suit. People can access your home wireless network from on the street outside but you will pay the RIAA. People may buy legal and legitimate smart card programmers but Directv would sue and collect money none the less. So because justice permits such lawsuits and when they were innocent, that court complaint had to be untruthful and as such a fraud. Victims then became crime victims of the crime of fraud. The victim witness program ignored these crime victims in spite of the crime victims statute. For those who were innocent, they need to do just what justice has done. The next time they are a juror or a witness, ignore justice by jury nullification. Ignore justice by not being a state witness. This is the only thing which will send a strong enough message to put justice back to protecting the innocent from fraudulent lawsuits designed to collect money and silence the victims.