Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Case May Be Televised On Internet

Posted by Soulskill on from the court-documents-likening-the-riaa-to-vampires dept.

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.'"

14 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. There is a better way... by alain94040 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is.

    But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get...

    15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like.

    Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did).

    When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again.

    Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.

    --
    Free and Fair, Friend or Foe?

    1. Re:There is a better way... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is. But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get... 15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like. Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did). When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again. Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.

      If, for example, the tech community could get a chance to watch the testimony of the RIAA's "expert" and "investigator", I think a lot of good input would be communicated to the defendant's lawyer. Which would be anathema to the RIAA's campaign, since its primary fuel is ignorance.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:There is a better way... by b4upoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem reduces to the existence of the middle man. Back in the day before microphones existed every event of any size required a large band or orchestra. Once the microphone came along a small band could function so that anywhere from three to five musicians could entertain a large crowd. Music at home was normally provided by each family being able to play from sheet music. Next the radio was the stroke of death for music. Employment for professional musicians, once common, became rare. Worse yet all of the monkeys in the middle started wanting a piece of the action. The radio station, the record companies, the TV stations and so called agents began to feed deeply from the pockets of real musicians. Supporting these men in the middle harms music and musicians in a thousand different ways. Rebel actions to kill off these monkeys in the middle are not immoral at all.

    3. Re:There is a better way... by kentrel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't sell singles 15 years ago??? And every single record store I've been in for the past 15 years has allowed me to listen to a CD in store before I buy it.

    4. Re:There is a better way... by number11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      we need to take up a collection and buy a court transcript from one of their trials, and publish that with our favorite bits highlighted

      Unless, of course, some public spirited party who is buying a transcript anyhow would share it :)

      (I'm assuming, of course, that the workings of justice themselves cannot be hidden behind copyrights. But Groklaw doesn't seem to have any problems publishing transcripts.)

  2. Hold the line against the night by gavron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sunlight is feared by all those who would use darkness and ignorance to enslave those who cannot break free. Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem. Ehud

  3. Re:Televise? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your computer is a television in that it allows you to view moving images transmitted over a distance:P

    Yeah - I'm being pedantic and taking liberties with definitions.

  4. Re:To whom knows... by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you seen how our legal system works these days? The whole thing would completely fall apart with any level of transparency, never mind audience feedback. It's easy enough to get someone jailed when they're being judged by a dozen people who couldn't think up an excuse to get out of jury duty... not so much when you've got ten thousand pointing out the flaws and inaccuracies in the prosecution's arguments.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  5. Re:To whom knows... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NYCL, or other informed lawyers: Why is there such a disdain and avoidance to audio/visual recording and dissemination about court cases?

    There isn't. There is a growing trend towards it. Only the RIAA has "disdain" and "avoidance", since shining a light on things tends to encourage their mortal enemy... the Truth.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. Re:Televise? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only approved, purchased content on a secure, Trusted Platform (tm). Anything else would be communist, comrade.

    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  7. Light of day... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... heaven forbid ! We can't have what goes on in court broadcast to the masses, they might realize how fragile the whole system is. How the courts are not there to establish truth, but to ascertain guilt (not innocence if you recall, we're all innocent until proven guilty) - two very different concepts. If people realized that their rights were trampled upon routinely by corporations, they would rebel, and the capitalist system - as it currently exists in the U.S. - would be in jeopardy. The power structure would collapse, and there would be chaos. It wouldn't be pretty for anyone, and we'd all end up living under Sharia law before you know it.

    You have been warned.

    1. Re:Light of day... by Yetihehe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Computer geeks laugh at computers in films, pirotechnicians laugh at explosions in films, doctors laugh at depictions of other doctors and astronauts laugh at scenes in space. The same is for lawyers and judges. Presumably for all other things. Hollywood is just one big lie, because reality isn't beautiful enough.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
  8. broadcast will only be to SUBSCRIBING public by Infoport · · Score: 3, Insightful

    unfortunately, Courtroom View Network is a subscriber-based service (read John Shin's supporting declaration), so only the paying public who already knows about the case will be able to view it. Granted, many people never watch CourtTV either, but a case such as this with issues that interested much of the general public has the potential to gather LOTS of viewers, educating a large segment of the population (both on the RIAA's agenda, and on their actual tactics).

    I fear that the hurdles put up by making people subscribe to CVN's service will influence many to not bother "tuning-in", especially in a culture where people are accustomed to "surfing", and previewing TV channels and websites before committing to the entire thing.

  9. Re:I'm gonna be a STAR! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel."

    Hi Mom! I'm on TV!!!

    I don't think they'd want their mothers to see what they are doing for a living.

    *back on topic*

    Spoilsport.

    I was under the impression that court proceedings were open to the public by default, and required extraordinary circumstances to be closed to the public.

    You were under the correct impression.

    Televising the court proceedings would only scale up the 'open to the public' concept IMHO

    Exactly.

    but I can also see some of the downside to this: 1. the tendency of our news media to spin, slant, edit, and sensationalize everything to try increasing their audience.

    They can do that much easier if the public can't see what's really going on.

    2. the ability to influence public opinion (due to #1 above), which can in turn influence the court's decision.

    As I noted in an earlier comment, the jury basically is -- or is supposed to be -- "the public", only (a) in microcosm, and (b) with all of the actual admissible evidence in hand.

    3. the whole thing turning into a media circus, as per the likes of Jerry Springer-type shows.

    If you read the court papers carefully, you'll see there's no way for that to happen. The camera is invisible and doesn't affect the trial.

    Without specific, strict guidelines for this, more harm than good is possible.

    Well there are very specific, strict guidelines for this.

    Some of those guidelines necessary could in themselves be considered unconstitutional.

    ??? On the one hand you're saying it needs to be regulated. On the other hand you're saying that regulating it would be unconstitutional. That is kind of illogical, I hope you realize. In any event, it is a moot point, because it is very very strictly regulated, and the regulations which are being used have not been ruled to be unconstitutional.

    I don't know which side of the fence I'm on in this debate.

    Sounds to me like you do know which side of the fence you're on.

    In an ideal world, transparency and openness is desired.

    Indeed it is.

    But in this world, the chance of skewing trial results is just too high to be acceptable, IMHO.

    You haven't shown us a single reason why turning on an invisible video camera would in any way skew anything.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful