RIAA: Two Faces Have I?
Will Web folk of the world get a chance to watch next week's unprecedented and groundbreaking webcast live or were we just deluding ourselves? In what can only be described as a typically predictable move, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has appealed Federal Judge Nancy Gertner's order allowing the hearing of Joel Tenenbaum's copyright infringement trial to be narrowcast over the Web.
Today, the Harvard legal team representing Tenenbaum commented on the appeal pointing out that if the RIAA truly wants to educate people it should be embracing the narrowcast. The appeal really does beg the question: does the RIAA really want its voice heard by the masses?
A Bit of History
Joel Tenenbaum, a 25-year old graduate student at Boston University received a notice in 2003 accusing him of downloading seven songs via a P2P service. The notice asked for a settlement of $3,500, Tenenbaum offered $500; the offer was declined.
Four years later, Tenenbaum received a complaint to appear in court. He filed an answer with a counterclaim asserting abuse of federal power and that the excessive damages were unconstitutional. This time around, Tenenbaum offered to settle for $5,000 and again the offer was declined; opposing council was asking for $10,500.
Now the RIAA wants over one million dollars.
The Joel Fights Back Dream Team
Enter Professor Charles Nesson and his team of Harvard Law students, who last month filed a motion asking the judge to allow audio-visual coverage of the trial proceedings over the Internet. Last week, Judge Gertner granted the motion (PDF) stating:
"In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet Generation -- the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general, and the internet in particular, as commonplace." Additionally, Judge Gertner points out "It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if not almost exclusively, over the internet."
Yesterday, Torrent Freak pointed out that the RIAA is appealing (PDF) the motion, pointing to a statement by RIAA's Cara Duckworth: "While this might be an interesting academic exercise for the professor and his class, there's been real world consequences for those who create music."
The point Ms. Duckworth seems to be missing is that there is a real world consequence for those who want to listen to music as well. We can only hope the appeal will be denied and the Harvard Dream Team gets the opportunity to bring this significant trial to the Web.
Why This is Important
Tenenbaum's team rightly point out that this is not about about copyright law, but that the "extent of the damages this statute permits are unconstitutional and that the music industry is abusing federal power by using the court system capriciously."The fines are hugely inappropriate. The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 sets damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, and as much as $150,000 for a willful violation. The Act is old. Particularly when you look at it from the fast paced lane of the Web; change is clearly needed.
The RIAA managed to score some points last month when it announced it would no longer target individuals and instead work more closely with ISPs to identify alleged copyright infringers. Unfortunately they also mentioned they would continue with cases already underway, and the Tenenbaum case falls into that category.
If the Internet feed goes ahead, it will be provided by the Courtroom View Network and streamed on the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School where it is scheduled to go live on Thursday Jan. 22 at 2 pm ET.
At the end of the day, it appears the RIAA has confused itself. If it is serious in wanting to educate the public on the business and legal issues facing the music industry - and copyright in general - it must get in front of the public and speak up; it cannot hide behind bureaucracy any longer. Living in the Internet age we know it's time that organizations with such antiquated ideologies catch up; problem is - when will they work it out?
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Actually, the RIAA would be smart to get as much attention to this case as possible... because any half-wit (and I'm not sure teenagers stealing content even live up to that moniker) will realize the Harvard dream-team is only available once, for other Harvard kids.
If you're a local putz attenting community college, you're not going to get access to half a million dollar's worth of legal advice over the course of a few years. Even the dumbest have internalized that American justice is only for those with deep pockets or celebrities, and if you didn't go to Harvard, chances are you're s.o.l.
Iron Flatline: Ever hear of Jurisprudence?
Over a million dollars... my god, for 7 songs? You've got to be kidding! I'm not delusional, I realize downloading music is illegal if you aren't paying for it... but a million? That will ruin his life... for 7 songs... and I bet they weren't even good songs.
If it wasn't so boring to watch live court drama, I'd definitely watch the stream online. And hope the RIAA gets put in its place.
It's amazing that even in the midst of this collaborative culture, the RIAA is going so violently against every principle of the social web. As the music industry is becoming increasingly fragmented and, more importantly, increasingly driven by word-of-mouth, it makes absolutely no sense â moral or business â to treat users as the "bad guy." I wonder how long it will take for the record business to start singing Radiohead's (and Jill Sobule's, among others) tune of open distribution.
Then again, it has historically taken copyright law years, if not decades, to catch up to cultural demand. Just look at the legislature on parody, the Ben Hur case, and how long it took even that to extend to music.
When the last animal of a species stammers and drops to the ground, gasping its last breath, sometimes it takes a while for it to finally die.
...but fear, while it may languish in agony ( and file appeals ) extinction is inevitable.
For the general digital lifestyle member, it's certainly a plus that they are supposedly no long pin pointing individuals; but what constitutes an "ongoing" case? The statute of limitations is years. The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot with this long term. In the time being, we should all be a little more watchful of what we are doing on the web legality and security wise.
The RIAA is trying to hang on to a dead biz model.
Before the net, it controlled the media upon which music was cut and carried. Now, the net is the medium. The RIAA needs to realize that consumers were never buying records or 8-tracks or cassettes or CDs...they were buying the talent on them, and, just like now, people were handing tapes and CDs off to friends to copy, regardless of the legality...the net just made, among other things, the copying easier.
Artists are no longer being represented by the RIAA, the way the RIAA wants to continue to represent them...artists can hire private studios, cut their own tracks, upload them to the net and then sell them on their own. The RIAA, which used to hover over cutting the old media, is trying to hang on to its free ride, it knows it and it doesn't want to get embarrassed in front of the world.
The RIAA is the modern-day equivalent of the buggy-whip manufacturer demanding that automobile buyers (consumers and artists) continue to buy whips.
That's why it doesn't want the narrowcast.