When the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals hears a high-profile music downloading case, it won't be letting in cameras of any kind, including webcasts. The court announced yesterday that it's decided that the presence of web cameras does violate an existing ban on cameras in the courtroom.
The decision may be a blow to the defense for Joel Tenenbaum (above, left), who's being sued by the RIAA for sharing songs on the Internet (they're only prosecuting for seven). If they win, he could pay up to $150,000 per song. Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson (above, right) has joined Joel's defense team, lending some star power to the case.
Nesson had pushed hard for the webcasts, as they would have let an Internet audience (likely to be sympathetic to the defendant) into the courtroom. Although the RIAA is no longer pursuing downloaders, they've continued in this case, likely because they would lose face if they backed down.
Questions:
1) Who is helped by the exclusion of the cameras from the courtroom?
2) If the public is unable to see the case, which has attracted a larger-than-usual amount of media attention, is it a violation of Mr. Tenenbaum's 6th Amendment right to a speedy and public trial?
No comments:
Post a Comment