[Infowarrior] - RIAA Fears 'Manipulation' of Courtroom Web Broadcast

[Richard Forno]

....and yet these were the same idiots who, last week, were told by  
the judge in the trial that since the declared rationale for these  
lawsuits was 'public education' they should have no problems with it  
being broadcast to the world.  Again, the RIAA flails in confused panic.

RIAA-Think Translation:  "ZMG! They might take something existing in  
digital form out of context!!!  Oh, noes!  How will people *ever*  
learn from this?"

You'd think they'd have some new material by now.......there's only so  
much flailing around that we can laugh at.

   --rf



RIAA Fears 'Manipulation' of Courtroom Web Broadcast
By David Kravets EmailJanuary 20, 2009 | 4:16:18 PMCategories: RIAA  
Litigation

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/riaa-fears-mani.html

The Recording Industry Association of America is objecting to the  
webcasting of pretrial arguments in an upcoming file-sharing trial.

The RIAA claims that the re-runs "will be readily subject to editing  
and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual."

That is among the arguments the RIAA is making in urging a federal  
appeals court to reverse a Massachusetts federal judge's order that  
would allow the pretrial broadcast this Thursday. The broadcast,  
assuming it goes forward, will include a Boston University student and  
his attorney challenging the RIAA's copyright infringement case. It is  
believed to be the first time a U.S. federal trial court has allowed a  
live internet stream from the courtroom.

"Petitioners 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 RIAA wrote (.pdf) the U.S. 1st  
Circuit Court of Appeals. "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 broadcast (sic) rebroadcast  
as if it were an accurate transcript. Such an outcome can only do  
damage to Petitioner's case."

The RIAA is taking exception to the fact that the feed will be  
distributed on the Berkman Center for Internet and Society's website.  
The head of the center is Charles Nesson, who is defending Joel  
Tennenbaum, the defendant in the case.

"Accordingly, in the name of 'public interest,' the district court has  
directed the general public to a website replete with propaganda  
regarding the Defendant's position in connection with this case, and  
that is specifically designed to promote Defendant's interests in this  
case," the RIAA wrote.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner of Massachusetts granted  
the over-the-internet coverage for the 2 p.m. hearing. Only a handful  
of U.S. trial judges have ever allowed cameras in their courtrooms  
during a live proceeding. Most of the states grant local judges the  
discretion whether to allow cameras.

"At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have  
represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they  
believe they will identify every person illegally downloading  
copyrighted material. Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will  
deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal  
file-sharing activities. Their strategy effectively relies on the  
publicity resulting from this litigation," Gertner wrote in granting  
the internet coverage.

The 1st Circuit did not indicate when it would rule.

The RIAA also said the broadcast "creates a serious risk of unfairly  
infecting the pool from which the jury in this case will be selected."

The RIAA, which has sued about 30,000 individuals on allegations of  
copyright infringement, claims it is winding down its 5-year-old  
litigation campaign. The recording industry's litigation and lobbying  
arm told the circuit court that, "The public interest will not be  
served by broadcasting a single snippet of these proceedings, because  
doing so places a misleading emphasis on a limited aspect of the  
judicial process."