Lawyer argues for live coverage in music downloading case

I imagine that the recording industry opposes broadcast because they are aware that the precise demographic to which they sell would regard their strong-arm copyright suit as unfair, overbearing and philosophically ludicrous -that is, they are properly ashamed of their behavior. While many court policies favor privacy, this is often to protect the judicial process, or to shield victims from the stigma associated with their injury. This would not justify shielding plaintiffs from the stigma attached to their unjust behavior. Here the court's goal of fairness should favor allowing the webcast. I am reminded of the same court's courage, during the Viet Nam war, when it allowed defendants to present, as a 'defense' to various charges of civil disobedience, that the government's onging commission of war crimes compelled them to engage in the acts of protest for which they were prosecuted. I don't credit the music copiers with any high purpose. On the contrary, I believe their prosecution is an inequitable use of laws (and penalties) that were drafted to address counterfeiters and illicit publishers, not casual consumers, and that the court has inherent power to allow the webcasts no matter what the court rules of yesteryear may have provided.

In my case, the defendants were denied their request to have a camera in the courtroom in order to PROTECT themselves from the abuses of a Superior Court judge . He was denying the defendants a stenographic record and then making up his own version of events. Remarkably, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld this standard, even when presented with a sworn affidavit of an officer of the court and knowing that the public record documented that publicly elected officials found it necessary to call in state troopers to protect the defendants from the "terrifying" abuse they saw them being subjected to. . . . . . . . . . . . . The case involved millions in property rights for transfer to insiders of the court. . . . . . . . . . . . You want a fair trial in a Massachusetts? Don’t count on it until defendants are allowed to have cameras in the courtrroms in order to PROTECT THEMSELVES from the hair raising abuses of the present Massachusetts courts.

How many times does one have to repeat this for it to get through to the more dense members of the population. Stealing is stealing, even if every body else does it. DUH!
Arguing to have this trial broadcast over the internet is just a publicity stunt hoping to delay the trial until they can claim they did not get a speedy trial and the resultant verdict should be thrown out.

The recording industry is out of control. These people they sue are the ones who are their best customers. Time to realize things have changed and stop suing people. Everyone pirates music, movies, and TV , and if you don't you live in the stone age.

Sunshine should be allowed to shine on everything and everyone. Those who oppose it have something to HIDE. Other than for purposes of witness and child protections, there is no room for secrecy of any kind in a court of law.

While I agree that the underlying issue here, whether those who obtain music files by downloading them online without paying a fee, is somehwat controversial. I'm not sure that allowing casual consumers the freedom to ignore existing copyright law is as insignificant as some make it out to be.

The music industry make in fact be its own worst enemy in all of this, but given the millions, if not billions of casual consumers that have access to the internet and the ability and opportunity to download the creative work of musical artists whose work is protected under existing copyright law, the loss to the artist or other copyright holder can be significant.

While I apprciate the underlying philosophy of the copy left movement and open source efforts, I am left thinking that if someone does not believe in the fairness of copyright law, then they should not copyright their work. But by the same token, they should not be able to inflict their value judgments on those who seek protection under existing laws.

I'm left wondering how these advocates of freedom who ignore the intellectual property rights of those who have taken the time and paid the expense of seeking copyright protection would feel if someone who believed that other property rights protected by law should be ignored as well casually consumed other property.

For example, would a casual consumer be allowed to drive off with their car, or make off with their cash or other personal property?

At what point do members of society gain the right to choose which laws and rights of others are okay to violate based on their personal philosophy?

At what point did those who seek protection under existing laws become the villains?

Mike, your logic assumes that the recording industry's efforts to protect their copyright rights is "unfair, overbearing and philosophically ludicrous," justifies internet broadcasting of the proceedings. But if there is no merit to the industry's legal claimn, they will lose the case. If the claims do have merit, they will prevail. One person's VIEW as to the merit of a litigant's case does not justify an argument that the proceeding should be broadcast. If the industry is enforcing lawful rights afforded to it by the US Congress, it is perfectly free to do so. No outside opinion should influence whether/not it shld be broadcast

What happens in a court of law must be made public and availble for scrutiny by all. The judges remember the Lopez case and try to keep the public at bay. (Remember the broadcasting of Lopez' 2 words to the D.DA: "Sit Down! ) What the camera captured but a transcript would not reflect still gives me the shivers. Also, Brokentrust is right. The shenanegans in the MA state courts have gone way over-the-top. They even allow trials with jurors dressed in Halloween costumes. The simple act of allowing litigants cameras in the courtroom would put an end to such unregulated nonsense.

Burt, Cases are rarely, if ever, dismissed for lack of a speedy trial in civil cases. You reference a standard applicable to criminal cases.

If you steal a CD from a store, or a hundred CDs even, you do not end up paying MILLIONS of dollars in fines. This is a gross abuse on the recording industry's part and it needs to stop. These are the arguments that the defense wants to broadcast to the world, and to show that the industry has no defense against such arguments. Stealing is stealing, but this is not supposed to be a country that cuts off the hands of people stealing loaves of bread!

Judge Lipez was right. If it is a good idea to webcast trial court proceedings, it should be the rule for all trials, not just ones where one party thinks it will be to its tactical advantage. I have no doubt that the free media movement has ample resources to publicize on the internet its view that this case is bullying by the big bad recording industry (which the movement has decimated) without using taxpayer-subsidized graphics from the trial court. Maybe, if the RIAA puts on a really good case, it will shame the expropriators into paying for what they steal. Not likely, though, since the public shares the ripped-off feeling that makes the thieves feel self-righteous.

i think they should be allowed to downlaod music first of all because, you can download music from practically anywhere such as youtube, And besdies its just a song. and a song cant hurt you or anything and the songs is just a few min. why would u debate about that.