Going back to January 2009, the article enlightens us on some of the issues regarding the broadcast of pretrial arguments at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society in the Tennenbaum case. If you recall, Defendants (Joel Tennenbaum, represented by Charles Nesson) succeeded in obtaining permission to broadcast these arguments. However, it is interesting to see the objections of the Plaintiff (RIAA) to the broadcast. The objections were essentially the following: the broadcasts would be susceptible to manipulation and publicly presenting the arguments would taint the jury pool.
In granting the internet coverage, 1st Circuit Judge Gertner wrote, "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."
So, basically, the RIAA wanted some publicity regarding the case, but only on their own terms?
No comments:
Post a Comment