Posted by David Post:
Seriously, Who *Is* Advising These Guys
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_18-2009_01_24.shtml#1232288167
Ben Sheffner, over on Copyright & Campaigns, has [1]a nice piece on
the efforts of record industry lawyers to overturn an order providing
for live Internet coverage of a court hearing next Thursday in one of
the RIAA's lawsuits asserting copyright infringement against the
operator/user of a peer-to-peer file-sharing system (RIAA v.
Tenenbaum). The case (quoting from the court's order):
. . . like many others now before the Court, is one for copyright
infringement under 17 U.S.C. ยง 106. The Plaintiffs are some of the
nation's largest record companies. The Defendants in these
consolidated cases are individual computer users -- mainly college
students -- who, the Plaintiffs claim, used "peer-to- peer"
file-sharing software to download and disseminate music without
paying for it, infringing the Plaintiffs' copyrights. Many of the
Defendants have defaulted or settled, largely without the benefit
of counsel, subject to damages awards between $3,000 and $10,000
District Judge Nancy Gertner had granted a motion, [2]filed by the
Berkman Center at Harvard (which is representing the defendant),
allowing a webcast operator, Courtroom View Network, to stream
Thursday's proceedings live on the [3]Berkman Center website. The RIAA
has filed several "extraordinary writs" -- for mandamus and
prohibition -- seeking to overturn the order.
I should say, to begin with, that I'm generally a big fan of live
broadcasts of court proceedings; in fact, I think we should do more
demanding of our public officials that they provide such access
routinely. [I clerked at the Supreme Court back in 1993, and it
annoyed me then, and it annoys me still, that live broadcasts of
Supreme Court proceedings are not made generally and widely available]
And I should also say that I'm not a huge fan of the record labels'
campaign against individual file-sharers (Sheffner views it a little
more positively). But whatever position you take on these matters,
this really is not a pretty sight. What are they afraid of?
Petitioners [the labels] are concerned that, unlike a trial
transcript, the broadcast of a court proceeding through the
Internet will take on a life of its own in that forum. The
broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by
any reasonably tech-savvy individual. Even without improper
modification, statements may be taken out of context, spliced
together with other statements and []rebroadcast as if it were an
accurate transcript. Such an outcome can only do damage to
Petitioners' case.
How tone deaf are these guys? An industry that is so completely out of
touch with its customers is not long for this world. The RIAA, I grant
you, is in a tough spot regarding file-sharing, and it has taken (as
it has every right to take) a hard line on the law in the battle
against file-sharing. But come on, guys. "Statements will be taken out
of context"!! No!! I hate to be the one to tell you this, but: Welcome
to the 21st century. Yes, the tapes will be all over the Net, and
people will do all sorts of things with them, some hilarious, some
idiotic, many in between. Yes, some of that will make the record
labels (and their lawyers) look like fools. We have a name for that:
"free speech." It is, by and large, a really good thing. Plus, people
seem to enjoy engaging in it. Why not try to figure out how you, too,
can play in this new space? You don't have enough thumbs for all of
the holes in this dike, and we, the public, are justified in finding
your efforts to do so contemptible.
References
1.
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/01/record-labels-ask-first-circuit-to.html
2.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/federal-judge-boston-orders-groundbreaking-webcast-hearing
3. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
