The Recording Industry Association of America’s decision to sue Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum for sharing seven songs online may be controversial, but the issue of whether his trial can be streamed live online should not be. About 35,000 people have been sued by the RIAA since 2005, and it is about time that the public is made aware of exactly what happens in these trials.
The RIAA’s reasoning for appealing the decision of a United States District Court to allow a live video stream of the trial is laughable. It argues that the broadcast will make the trial ‘readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual,’ but broadcasting trials on television and the Internet is nothing new. This isn’t a play-by-play commentary that can skew public opinion in either direction; what you see is what you get. Given that anyone can attend this trial in person, why shouldn’t interested viewers be able to watch online? It is, after all, the next best thing to physical attendance.
The RIAA should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to the entire world why it is justified in suing thousands of people accused of sharing copyrighted music files. The unedited, live transmission will allow the public to decide for itself whether the RIAA has a valid argument. Shrouding this case in secrecy only suggests that the RIAA doesn’t want the public to see the true nature of these unfair suits. Bringing cameras into the courtroom will provide much needed transparency.
To the RIAA, the most important issue at stake in this trial is its reputation. To the concerned public, the RIAA’s legal maneuver to keep this trial from being shown online is inhibiting something much more important ‘- the free flow of information.
Sometimes I genuinely think the RIAA simply tries to make itself look like the most evil organization possible, just for kicks.