main
Report a problem

Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum: filesharing trial to be webcast?

James7   on 01 February 2009 - 16:35 · 9 comments & 3555 views

Advertisement (Why?)
With materials provided by MediaSentry, the RIAA accused former Harvard University student Joel Tenenbaum of sharing seven songs over the KaZaA network in 2003. In 2007, after Tenenbaum had tried but failed to "settle" the case to Sony BMG's satisfaction, they sued him. On 23 December 2008 Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard professor Charles Nesson, filed a motion requesting that the court allow the trial to be streamed live on the internet.

The court acquiesced and, on 14 January 2009, agreed to "narrowcast" coverage by the Courtroom View Network (the closed system of recording audio-visual elements of trials) "to the website of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, which will make the recording publicly available for all non-commercial uses via its website."

Sony BMG, as might be expected, was not in favor of such a move and entered a motion to stay the court's decision. They fear that webcasts from the trial will go viral and that the more public such trials are made, the more likely their cases will suffer (not to mention their reputations with their customers).

Although it is unlikely that the decision to make a webcast of the trial available to the public will be changed, the hearing which had originally been scheduled for 22 January 2009 has been postponed to 24 February 2009.

The case itself has generated a lot of interest from a variety of civil liberties groups. Digital Music News reports that the Associated press, the New York Times, National Public Radio, the Washington Post, and NBC Universal are among those news agencies calling for this trial to be webcast in its entirety.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 9 additional comments
#1 buzz99 on 01 Feb 2009 - 18:47
Will be available on torrents....lol
#2 Majesticmerc on 01 Feb 2009 - 19:13
This could be a fantastic precedent to set!
#3 Glassed Silver on 01 Feb 2009 - 19:51
AH! Good move on them!
I APPRECIATE that. Especially as since democracy LIVES of public trials, decisions, etc for the most part.

VERY good move, and love the court's decision! Thanks!

It's also sad, that one can be so happy about that, due to the many negative news we face nowadays in this subject.

Glassed Silver:win
#4 Atlonite on 02 Feb 2009 - 03:46
not to mention their reputations with their customers LOL thats a bit off everyone knows sony are just a money hungry corp that'll do anything they can to protect their back pockets and Mediasentry are nothing but a bunch of criminals doing illegal things online anyways (hackers snooping on pirates mmm that good isn't it)
(4 replies) #5 Kojio on 02 Feb 2009 - 05:32
If Sony were smart, they would drop the lawsuit immediately. Even if they manage to win the suit(which they will never collect on), the bad publicity could potentially cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
#5.1 C_Guy on 02 Feb 2009 - 15:47
There's no bad publicity here, just sanding up for the rights of content owners. The defendant is the only one suffering bad publicity as he illegally stole songs on the Internet.
#5.2 nevann on 02 Feb 2009 - 17:24
C_Guy said,
There's no bad publicity here, just sanding up for the rights of content owners. The defendant is the only one suffering bad publicity as he illegally stole songs on the Internet.


lol
#5.3 +macf13nd on 02 Feb 2009 - 17:40
C_Guy said,
There's no bad publicity here, just sanding up for the rights of content owners. The defendant is the only one suffering bad publicity as he illegally stole songs on the Internet.


You might be right about the morality of the situation, but the PR of such a mega-corp suing the 'little-guy' is disastrous. that's obvious.
#5.4 Fritzly on 02 Feb 2009 - 23:53
C_Guy said,
There's no bad publicity here, just sanding up for the rights of content owners. The defendant is the only one suffering bad publicity as he illegally stole songs on the Internet.


Last time I checked you are innocent until you are proven guilty.
Your statement is self explanatory.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)