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.'"
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?
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
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.
"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.
I doubt that argument works when it's the defendant that's looking to get the legal proceedings broadcast.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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.
NYCL, or other informed lawyers:
Why is there such a disdain and avoidance to audio/visual recording and dissemination about court cases? Being in this day and age, we could have multiple angles, multiple audio streams, and court transcript, along with evidence log attached to each "case document". Torrents could easily disseminate these large files, allowing for a complete log and documentation where our laws and case law come from.
This is a job for Streaming BitTorrent.
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.
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.
... 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.
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
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.
"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
Fear of the unknown. The more people know about what to expect in a trial V. RIAA the less they will fear it. Lawyers know all about court and trials but, the average person knows very little about what to expect at a trial of this magnitude and they are probably scared to death of the possibility of being on the wrong side of one of these. Perhaps people will not be so afraid to share music files after seeing this trial and that has to scare the hell out of RIAA. To think that one of these trials could actually lead to more music files being shared instead of less. P.S. A big thanks to NYCL for all his hard work!
Thanks, GeorgeS. Another of the RIAA's biggest fears is that a publicly available videotape of the proceedings will assist defendant's lawyers in preparing for future cases, and thus reduce the defendants' cost of litigation. The RIAA lawyers' primary goal is to drive up the cost to the defendants of defending themselves. If they could have it their way, they would want every case enshrouded in an all-inclusive confidentiality order.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I would like the motion to pass so I can watch the RIAA face plant as they try to maintain such flimsy cases in the face of common sense and reason. The fact that they have stopped pursuing any additional Individual cases shows us just how futile their efforts really are... even they recognize it. Do they have any more legs to stand on?
Yes but are you so sure they've "stopped pursuing any additional individual cases"?
I'm not
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
They didn't sell singles 15 years ago???
Yeah, well that was the era of grossly overpriced CD singles. They were sometimes UK £2 - £2.50 in the first week only for promotional reasons, but after that they were usually £4. 4 BLOODY QUID! And you can slap on an extra quid for today's money. £5 at modern conversion rates is over US $7 for a bloody single! I don't care how many bloody extra bonus tracks they slapped on to vainly justify the bloated cost. (*)
Cassette singles were cheaper, but not that cheap, and there was no good reason for the difference in price. Singles sucked in the 1990s.
(Cue cheap anti-nostalgia wavy video effect).
When I think back to the mid-90s, when the record business here had coalesced around the major chains like Virgin and HMV, but MP3 was still an obscure geek curio and major online retailers nonexistent... I remember how overpriced those f*****rs were. At their high-water mark, the cost of a typical full-price back-catalogue CD album was actually above the 15 quid ($22) mark. And they'd still be doing it if there was no competition.
Given the people who may well lose their jobs and- even more seriously- for what it says about our economy, I can't take any pleasure in the fall of Virgin (or Zavvi as the UK stores are now called). But they're the epitome of everything that was wrong with music retailing in the 1990s and early-2000s.
(*) Side note: What's the accepted method for showing a historical price in another currency in today's terms? Do I convert pounds to dollars at (e.g.) 1995 rates first *then* factor in dollar inflation. Or do I factor in pound inflation first then convert from pounds to dollars at modern-day rates?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).