Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Case May Be Televised On Internet
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston case in which the defendant is represented by Prof. Charles Nesson and his CyberLaw class at Harvard Law School, the defendant has requested that audio-visual coverage of the court proceedings be made available to the public via the internet. Taking the RIAA at its word — that the reason for its litigation program is to 'educate the public' — the defendant's motion (PDF) queries why the RIAA would oppose public access: 'Net access to this litigation will allow an interested and growingly sophisticated public to understand the RIAA's education campaign. Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging. How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.'"
"How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.'"
Easy, they are like roaches. Ever notice how when you enter a room infested with roaches and turn on the light? The roaches immediately run for the shadows.
Due to bandwidth issues, RIAA has decided that distributing the court case by Bit Torrent is the cost effective way of re-broadcasting the trial.
Available only at, ISOHUNT, MININOVA, MEGANOVA, Pirate Bay and welcometothescence.
Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging. How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.
It's clear that the IRAA hasn't found a way to get royalties from the broadcasters for their court appearances.
Requiem for the American Dream
I don't recognize it, but I presume it is a quote from classic or geek literature.
Have you ever seen a reflection of Dracula in a mirror? No, because he has no soul. Have you, or will you ever see televised pictures of RIAA folks. No, because they have no souls. Read the fine print in your camcorder manual: "This device is not able to capture images of folks with no souls."
I think you folks are being insensitive here. Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel. How would you like it if you did for a living what they do for a living, and your friends, family, and neighbors -- even maybe your parents -- even maybe your children -- could see what you do? Or how would you like it if by offchance the tape was seen by a future prospective employer, who thought you had actually been practicing law?
Please have a little compassion.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If they play music as evidence during the case, would everyone watching the broadcast online get sued?
Law is such an interesting mix of common sense and logic.
Except in RIAA cases, where there is, instead, an interesting dearth of common sense and logic.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It is victis, not victus I believe.
What's this, then? 'Romanes Eunt Domus'? 'People called Romanes they go the house'?
It-- it says, 'Romans, go home'.
No, it doesn't!
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Because they'd get their heads blown off and their HQ reduced to a pile of rubble the first time they sued a drug baron's daughter?
It's not like they were forced to work for the RIAA. Yes, they are maybe young and they really need that money to pay off their student loan, but personally, I'd have rather starred in a porn movie. I'd consider it less of a blemish on my CV.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My...that's a mighty large brief you have there. Care to put it in my briefcase? And just to warn you, when I give testimony I do it loudly.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.