TechMiso

In one of the most brilliant moves to-date against the RIAA’s litigation campaign versus music consumers, the Tenenbaum legal team led by Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson has convinced the court to allow the trial to be broadcast live on the internet. In her opinion granting the request, Judge Gertner noted how peculiar it was for the RIAA to appeal, especially considering they have repeatedly stipulated the entire basis for the lawsuits was to educate consumers about the evils of music piracy.

Score one for hypocrisy – in a swift act of irony, the RIAA has appealed Judge Gertner’s decision. Instead of using the opportunity to give the public firsthand knowledge about the harms caused to artists by file sharing, the RIAA is trying to squirm its way out of the webcast. They are running scared for who knows what reason. In fact, much of their appeal makes little to no sense whatsoever.

Apart from the fact that the decision of the district court is wrong on its face, it is troubling in its application. The order requires members of the public who wish to view the broadcast to do so by visiting the website of the Berkman Center for Internet Society (the “Berkman Center”), an organization founded by the Defendant’s counsel which has filed amicus briefs against Petitioners and their copyright enforcement efforts. That result undermines basic principles of fairness and is flatly inconsistent with public interest.

I am not sure I completely comprehend the basis for the RIAA’s dissent. Is the RIAA stating that because the Defendant’s counsel has filed amicus briefs against the RIAA that they are not in need of education? Maybe it is because we are talking about Harvard Law School – there are exceptional minds attending Harvard Law, therefore they are in no need of extracurricular education? Those students would never learn from the RIAA, right?

Notice how the RIAA’s counsel makes a statement but provides no basis for the statement? I wonder, exactly, how a webcast “undermines basic principles of fairness and is flatly inconsistent with public interest.” I sure would love to hear in-depth analysis from the RIAA on this specific stipulation.

Recording and broadcasting this proceeding will prejudice the Petitioners’ efforts to enforce their legal rights, and no appeal at a later date could correct that prejudice once done. A writ of mandamus ordering the district court to vacate its Order of January 14, 2009 should issue so that the rules of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the policies of the Judicial Conference can be upheld, and so that the core interests of the parties in this case – the need to ensure fairness to all litigants in the trial court – can be adequately protected.

The rest of the filing is filled with interesting nuggets of information that will have your jaw drop to the floor. To see these folks running scared is bizarre.

Those of us who have followed the RIAA’s litigation campaign from the beginning obviously find this appeal quite troubling. Their entire crusade was predicated on education, so why is webcasting this trial so bothersome? Could it have anything to do with Professor Charles Nesson being a Harvard Law School professor? Regardless, one definitely has to wonder why the RIAA is so frightened.

Interestingly enough, even some lawyers who support the litigation campaign are questioning the RIAA’s motives in appealing the decision. They are dumbfounded by the lengths to which the RIAA is going to try and stop the webcast from happening.

A [sic] Judge Gertner correctly pointed out in her order, the labels themselves have stated that one important aspect of their litigation against individuals is the public-relations benefit of demonstrating to the world that copyright infringement will not be tolerated. For the labels now to attempt to make public discussion of one of their cases — which is being litigated in open court where anyone is allowed to attend — as difficult as possible for those of us who can’t be there in person, is baffling, and unjustified.

Is anyone really surprised to find out the RIAA is not interested in education? From day one the litigation campaign has been about maintaining control of outdated business models and a lack of desire to adapt.

One really has to wonder if the RIAA even realizes the gravity of such demonstrated hypocrisy. I am definitely not a betting man, but in this case I would make an exception.