Big Newspapers, Conglomerates Siding Against the RIAA

  • Save

A legal battle between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and accused file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum has attracted the attention of a consortium of major news organizations. The group is supporting the webcast of legal proceedings involving Harvard University, which was initially approved by Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson. However, the RIAA is now battling the matter through an appeals court, arguing that video could easily be manipulated.

The consortium, which consists of fourteen members, including the New York Times, Courtroom Television Network, Dow Jones & Co., and NBC Universal, among others, believes that the case deserves public scrutiny. The group stated in their brief that “it is hard to imagine a hearing more deserving of public scrutiny through the same technological medium that is at the heart of this litigation.” The consortium also noted that other forms of courtroom reporting, including transcripts, can also be doctored.

The RIAA’s appeal has raised concerns about the integrity of video evidence, which can be manipulated using sophisticated software. However, the consortium believes that the benefits of webcasting legal proceedings outweigh the risks. The group argues that video evidence is not the only way to capture the proceedings, and that other forms of reporting can be used to verify the accuracy of the webcast.

The legal battle between the RIAA and Joel Tenenbaum has been ongoing for several years. Tenenbaum was accused of illegally downloading and sharing copyrighted music on peer-to-peer networks, and the RIAA filed a lawsuit against him in 2007. The case went to trial in 2009, and a jury found Tenenbaum liable for copyright infringement, awarding damages of $675,000.

Tenenbaum’s legal team argued that the damages were excessive, and the case has been in appeal ever since. The case has attracted the attention of legal scholars, who are interested in the broader implications of the case for copyright law. The involvement of Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson has brought the case to the attention of the mainstream media.

The consortium of news organizations supporting the webcast of the legal proceedings is a significant development in the case. The group believes that the case is of public interest, and that the webcast will provide a valuable insight into the legal process. The consortium also believes that the webcast will help to dispel any concerns about the integrity of the legal process.

The RIAA’s appeal is based on the argument that video evidence can be manipulated, but the consortium believes that this is not a valid reason to deny the webcast. The group argues that other forms of reporting can be used to verify the accuracy of the webcast, and that the benefits of webcasting legal proceedings outweigh the risks.

In conclusion, the legal battle between the RIAA and Joel Tenenbaum has attracted the attention of a consortium of major news organizations, who are supporting the webcast of the legal proceedings. The group believes that the case is of public interest, and that the webcast will provide a valuable insight into the legal process. The RIAA’s appeal is based on the argument that video evidence can be manipulated, but the consortium believes that this is not a valid reason to deny the webcast. The group argues that other forms of reporting can be used to verify the accuracy of the webcast, and that the benefits of webcasting legal proceedings outweigh the risks.