Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Justice System Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 14.139.237.34 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:07:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Legal Notes
Nascent Tecnologies and theRule of Law:
In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment
Mark
S. Hurwitz
have settled out of court or defaulted, a few have proceeded to trial. In one consoli
a number of record compa
dated action in the federal district court ofMassachusetts,
nies brought suit against individual users for copyright infringement under Title 17 of
theUnited States Code, which codifies federal copyright law. One defendant who nei
ther settled nor defaulted made
a motion
motion, Capitol Records v.Alaujan, 593 F.Supp.2d 319 (D.Mass. 2009), but the First
Circuit Court ofAppeals held instead that a local rule of the district court precluded
the judge from allowing a webcast of the hearing, In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment,
564 F.3d 1 (1st Cir., cert, denied by Tenenbaum v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 130
S.Ct. 126, 2009).1
Federal district court of Massachusetts
the district court decision stated that this was an action for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C.
? 106, the circuit court opinion declared that these infringement actions were brought under 17 U.S.C
? 501.
As discussed herein, the plaintiffs requested the court of appeals to issue a writ ofmandamus or prohibition of the
district court's order to allow the webcasting of certain proceedings in this case. The First Circuit granted the
plaintiffs' request, thus prohibiting enforcement of the district court's order. Due to the procedural nature of the
matter, the district court decision was not technically reversed by the First Circuit.
This content downloaded from 14.139.237.34 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:07:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
348
doctrine
a new
today has
involve
the Internet,
resonance,
generated widespread
public attention, much of it on the Internet.
the particular
relief requested?"narrowcasting"
this proceeding
have
stances,
Under
these circum
to a public website?
This notion of a new public forumwas critical to the federal district court, as it
seemed to admonish the plaintiffs for their stance against the webcast of these pro
ceedings by labeling their objections "curious" (Capitol Records, at 321). That is, the
record companies acknowledged they hoped the publicity of these and similar proceed
ings would deter other users from illegally downloading copyrighted files, a view
according to JudgeGertner distinctly at odds with their position opposing the webcast
of these particular proceedings. Accordingly, the district court granted defendant's
to allow webcasting of the pretrial hearing.
motion
The First Circuit saw this case very differently. Circuit Judge Bruce Seyla wrote
the majority opinion on behalf of Circuit Judges Juan Torruella and Kermit Lipez.
Judge Seyla first discussed a jurisdictional issue before addressing the merits of the
motion.
tional power of advisory mandamus, since thiswas a case of first impression that con
tained an important issue likely to recur.
themerits.
tain no such prohibition, so the court embarked on a discussion of Local Rule 83.3 and
the district court judge's discretion regarding that rule in this case. Generally, the stan
dard of review in a case concerning the management of a courtroom is "abuse of dis
cretion but with a special degree of deference" (Sony BMG Music Entertainment, at 5,
quotingCrowley v. L.L. Bean, 361 F.3d 22, 25 [1stCir. 2004]). Not only did the district
court judge abuse her discretion, but her interpretation of Local Rule 83.3 was "palpa
bly incorrect" (Sony BMG Music Entertainment, at 5).
2
There is a technical difference between narrowcasting (restricted transmission over the Internet to a select audi
ence) and webcasting
(unrestricted transmission over the Internet to a general audience). While Courtroom
View Network proposed to narrowcast these proceedings to a secure Web site at Harvard Law School (the aca
demic home of the lawyer for the defendant bringing the instant motion), the proceedings were then to be web
cast over the Internet to a more general audience. While articulating this difference, the First Circuit
terms synonymously (Sony BMG Music Entenainment, at 2, fh. 1).
This content downloaded from 14.139.237.34 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:07:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
used the
349
Legal Notes
order of the court" language is limited to those circumstances specified in part (c) of
the rule, which concerns the preservation of evidence or investitive, ceremonial, or
naturalization proceedings. That is, the rule is not a general discretionary tool for the
judge to order broadcasting, but should be narrowly construed.
First Circuit held that its narrow interpretation of the local rule was sup
a
ported by policy edict of the United States Judicial Conference, which declares that
all broadcasts of judicial proceedings are inappropriate.
Following the Judicial
Conference's suggested ban on broadcasts?which
would
include webcast
presumably
ing?the First Circuit Judicial Council adopted a resolution prohibiting broadcasts of
The
civil proceedings within the district, providing further evidence that the local rule
should be narrowly interpreted. Thus, the First Circuit decided to "exercise our advi
sorymandamus authority [to] prohibit enforcement of the challenged order" ensuring
no broadcast on the Internet of the pretrial hearing (Sony BMG Music Entertainment,
at 9).
Interestingly, the tenor of the district court and First Circuit opinions in this
case could not be more different. In fact, the disparity between the perspectives of the
two levels of court in this case is similar to the classic case from New York of the
teenager who died while diving from a springboard into theHarlem River from defen
dant's property. In that case, New York Court of Appeals Justice Benjamin Cardozo
turned an ordinary trespass action, whereby the defendant was not responsible for
1919,
plaintiff's death, Hynes v.New YorkCentral Railroad Co., 188A.D. 178 (N.YA.D.
one
was
on
a
was
in
into
which
the
who
owed
Putnam, J.),
plaintiff,
public waterway,
a duty of care that was breached by the defendant whose land abutted the waterway,
Hynes, 231 N.Y. 229 (1921, Cardozo, J.). In the intermediate appeals court case, Judge
Putnam held the defendant not liable because the plaintiff improperly trespassed on
defendant's property. However, on appeal Justice Cardozo determined that the plain
tiffwas
(Hynes, at 231). The analogy between these cases nearly 100 years apart seems clear
enough, whereby one level of court proved farmore restrictive in its interpretation
than its counterpart in the hierarchy of justice.
the First Circuit was unambiguous in asserting that the local rule prohib
ited any form of broadcasting judicial proceedings. "[T]his is a society dedicated to the
rule of law; and ifa controlling rule, properly interpreted, closed federal courtrooms in
Here,
Massachusetts
ed: "We are also mindful that emerging technologies eventually may change the way
This content downloaded from 14.139.237.34 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:07:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
350
has been
Indeed, this was precisely the position taken by Circuit Judge Lipez, who con
curred in a separate opinion by questioning the continued relevance of the local rule
while asserting the rule's clear prohibition of any kind of broadcasting in this case:
Local
The
Rule
matic
advances
These
new
lic access
at the center
technological
to the judicial
was
in 1990. Since
its adoption, dra
adopted
on our society.
a
had
have
effect
technology
profound
an
to
increase pub
opportunity
provide
unprecedented
of this controversy
in communications
capabilities
in appropriate
system
circumstances.
They
have
Local
Rule
also created
expec
the broadcasting
or recording
of district
court proceedings,
83.3
prevents
such
demonstrates,
the Rule,
the Policy,
and
the Resolution
should
all be reexamined
This content downloaded from 14.139.237.34 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:07:18 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions