• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, February 2, 2009

The record industry's lawsuit against grad student Joel Tenenbaum appears likely to be one of the last such cases against an individual accused of file-sharing. The case also will be one of the most significant, likely to affect how courts view the Internet for years to come.

Tenenbaum's legal team riled the RIAA with a motion to stream the trial online. Judge Nancy Gertner granted the request, but the RIAA filed an emergency appeal.

Now, a host of digital rights groups and major journalistic organizations -- including The Associated Press, the New York Times Co. and Dow Jones -- have also asked the First Circuit to allow a Webcast in the trial.

"Camera access puts important information into the hands of a public that now seeks out news 24 hours a day on the Internet. It also allows journalists beyond the jurisdiction to report on proceedings, and the Internet availability of an audiovisual webcast improves the accuracy of reporting on the courts," the press groups argue.

Tenenbaum's legal team, led by Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, also filed its appeal -- a three-page argument that highlights the underlying principles at stake. "There is a potentially huge and relevant Internet audience for this case," his team argues. "Joel's peers, the Internet generation, increasingly face copyright's threat to the open net."

Given that trials are public proceedings, it's hard to see any legitimate reason not to make them available online. In the last decade, a host of other public records -- from mug shots to court decisions to complaints in lawsuits -- have migrated to the Web. Written transcripts are part of the public record -- and often become available online -- but these documents can't capture body language or tone of voice the way cameras do.

Years before CBS aired "Survivor," Court TV (now TruTV) proved there was a public appetite for reality TV. At the same time, Court TV's coverage of the O.J. Simpson double-murder trial spurred a backlash to cameras in the courtroom. Many pundits thought the Simpson trial went awry because the judge and lawyers played to the cameras at the expense of focusing on the issues. Regardless of what happened in that one instance, numerous other trials have been televised without similar complaints.

The news organizations argue that the next hearing, slated for Feb. 24, is especially important. That's when the court is slated to consider Tenenbaum's argument that the RIAA's litigation campaign against non-commercial users is unconstitutional. That issue doesn't just affect Tenenbaum, but could have an impact on many Web users. There's no valid reason not to make that hearing available to the public on the Web.