Monday, June 01, 2009

Tenenbaum files petition for certiorari to US Supreme Court seeking webcast of public proceedings

According to court papers filed today in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the defendant is filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the First Circuit's ban on webcasting of district court proceedings.

Defendant has moved for a stay of all proceedings, in the District Court, pending Supreme Court review.

The petition is based on the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, and among other things, raises the following issue:

In totally prohibiting a district court judge from exercising any discretion to facilitate exercise of the constitutional rights of public access by means of Internet or other electronic broadcasting of open-court sessions in civil cases, does the ruling below impermissibly restrict the judicial power vested in federal district court judges by the Constitution and creational statutes?

Motion for Stay
Petition for Certiorari

Commentary & discussion:

Excess Copyright
Digital Media Wire

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


Anonymous said...

Didn't the RIAA at one time claim their actions were to inform the public about this issue? If this is their intent, then this should be something they want to happen.

There are many examples of the RIAA saying one thing and doing the opposite and yet I do not see it makeing a diffrence in how the courts see and trust them. How can someone ignore something like this for such a prolonged amount of time and what will it take for the courts to finally see the RIAA for their actions. I also wonder if because they drop or settle their cases before trial is this helping them in that reguard.

Anonymous said...


The appeals court ruled the way it did because of an aniquated rule nobody knew about. You should read the back blog posts and case files on this issue to get the details.


Anonymous said...

This man cannot understand the logic on why live and stored audio/video records of every court proceeding aren't available to the public on demand via the best broadcast mechnism(s) of the time. Even ex parte proceedings that aren't "in chambers" ought to be available. Isn't justice supposed to be dispensed under bright sunlight so that the public can believe in its fairness?

{The Common Man Speaking}

jr said...

I know you've had issues with the case as a whole but whats your thoughts on this Ray? Do you think there is a chance that the court will take a look? I know I actually think its a very very important thing to be decided (in many ways even more important then the case in this day and age) but sometimes I'm amazed at how little people want to push important issues.

raybeckerman said...

Very very few petitions for certiorari are granted.

I would like this to be granted; I do think the matter is of utmost importance, that Judge Gertner was right, and that the First Circuit was wrong.

But the odds of any petition for cert being granted are always slim.

If the petition for cert is granted, reversal is more likely than not in my opinion.

raybeckerman said...

Rejected comment from Anonymous Anonymous, making assertions without backup, also giving us no handle by which to refer to him or her. For all I know comment could have been from the prince of darkness.

Mark said...

To the extent that personal preferences might have any impact on a discretionary choice to take or not take the case, it might weigh against granting cert, as several Supreme Court justices (both "liberal" and "conservative") are known to be very opposed to an increase in cameras and broadcasting in courtrooms, so probably aren't that eager to overturn a ruling prohibiting them.

Anonymous said...

Ray, please get a graphic designer to help you out with your page. The color of the fonts are really tough to read. :(

Geoff Whiting said...

the Supreme Court to review these questions was (promptly) denied