• Home
  • News
  • RIAA Wants Harvard Prof to Take Case Recordings Off the Web

Media & Communications Law

RIAA Wants Harvard Prof to Take Case Recordings Off the Web

Posted Jul 6, 2009 2:25 PM CST
By Sarah Randag

The Recording Industry Association of America says that Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson is violating court orders and privacy laws by posting recordings of pretrial hearings and depositions to his blog and to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society website.

Wired's Threat Level blog provides links to examples of what the RIAA is referring to: a deposition of Joel Tenenbaum, who is being sued by the RIAA over file-sharing and represented by Nesson pro bono; a phone conversation between RIAA lawyers and U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner “without the prior consent of participants"; and two expert depositions taken last week. Threat Level notes that Nesson was tweeting the July 1 deposition of copyright expert John Palfrey.

“Enough is enough. For the past five months, this court has repeatedly warned defense counsel regarding his insistence on engaging unauthorized and illegal recordings of counsel and proceedings in this case,” RIAA attorney Daniel Cloherty wrote in a motion (PDF provided by Threat Level).

Gertner issued an order (PDF provided by Threat Level) in February stating that recording conferences "without permission of the participants, as well as the broadcast of such communications, runs afoul" of Massachusetts state law.

Nesson told Threat Level he was unaware of that Massachusetts felony privacy law—punishable by up to five years in prison—and considers it unconstitutional.

“I would prefer myself to honor the United States Constitution and take my chances that recording a conversation with a judge in a federal case and opposing lawyers is somehow in violation of a Massachusetts statute that makes me a felon,” Nesson told Threat Level.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Jul 7, 2009 12:08 AM CST

RIAA will eventually be brought low by its own boundless avarice and extremism.

Flag this comment

2.

Drew L
Jul 7, 2009 11:03 AM CST

The RIAA must have good reason for not wanting anyone to hear what they saying.  Unfortunately, they are using our public court system to say those things, so I can’t imagine why they think they have a right to ‘privacy’ for them.

Flag this comment

3.

Walt Fricke
Jul 7, 2009 7:21 PM CST

In Colorado, if one party to a conversation agrees to recording it, the recording is not a violation of the “no secret recording” statute.  If you are a party and doing the recording, you are automatically off that hook.

But not all states have statutes worded that way.  Consider the “this conversation is being recorded for quality control purposes” one often hears.

Would not a judge have the inherent authority to forbid recording (other than by the court reporter) of anything, at least anything in which the judge is a party?

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.