In this second part of our look at the ‘fairness’ of P2P trials, we step away from the antics inside the courtroom to look at the overall effect that media perceptions and propaganda might have on a case. From the judge and juries attempting to enforce the law, to those that make the laws.
There has been a lot of court cases in the last week or two involving P2P, but there is something to be pondered, “Is a fair trial even possible?” Given the disparity between the sides in these sorts of cases, the resources, and the history, is the result a foregone conclusion before it’s even started?
With the defense in the Tenenbaum case getting their request to broadcast the trial online, it seemed that some light of exposure was to be brought to the RIAA’s method of litigation. Yet the RIAA doesn’t want their court practices exposed for all to see, and have now appealed the judges decision.
For many people, justice is something that is bought and sold in the US, especially where filesharing is concerned. Few lawyers are willing to represent, and fewer still understand the technologies involved in cases. Ray Beckerman is one of the few that seem to, and he now has an article in the current edition of The Judges Journal, about the RIAA lawsuits.
A Juror in the recent Capitol V Thomas trial speaks out, and potentially opens up avenues for overturning the verdict. His message to the RIAA , ‘your strategy is working’
