Monday, February 23, 2009

New wrinkle in SONY v. Tenenbaum case: it appears that the Judicial Council of the 1st Cir has banned televising

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, Judge Gertner's decision allowing a hearing to be televised stated:

[T]he Judicial Conference approved a resolution in March 1996 “to strongly urge each circuit judicial council to adopt” Conference policy banning cameras, and to “abrogate any rules of court” that conflict with that policy. See 929 F. Supp. 660; News Release: Judicial Conference Acts on Cameras in Court, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Mar. 12, 1996 (document # 720-14). To date, no circuit judicial council -- including the First Circuit judicial council which binds this Court -- has done so.(Emphasis supplied)
It now appears Judge Gertner may have been mistaken, and that she, the RIAA's lawyers, Mr. Tenenbaum's lawyers, and all of the amici's lawyers were unaware of an order by the First Circuit Judicial Council which did in fact adopt the Conference's recommendation. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has asked the parties to brief the legal effect of a 1996 order in which the Judicial Council apparently did adopt the suggestion of the Judicial Conference:

February 20, 2009, Order of US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

The deadline for submission of the briefs dealing with this limited issue is March 12th.

Commentary & discussion:

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player


Alter_Fritz said...

Hm, this stuff is nearly 13 years old, and while I understand that justicia generally loves it consistently and conservatively;
given that the world of information exchange has changed so drastically in this timespan, wouldn't it be time for the judges to reconsider such a decision?

Alleged the judges had something to fear in mind when they came to conclusion to "ban" society at large: What is it that the judges are fearing when they give society the ability to observe -on a much wider scale then what a tiny courtroom offers the public already now- what those judges are doing in the course of their profession?

Anonymous said...

The RIAA members always seem to
get what they want.
They want cameras banned in their
court, and it's sure looking
like they are going to get what
they want .. again.


Jadeic said...

So who authorised the installation of cameras and associated streaming technologies in First Circuit courtrooms?