Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Hearing Next Week Will Be Televised
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "One commentator labels it 'another fly in the RIAA's ointment.' In SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the Boston, Massachusetts, RIAA case in which the defendant is represented by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson and a group of his students, the Judge has ruled that the hearing scheduled for January 22nd will be televised over the Internet. The hearing will relate to Mr. Tenenbaum's counterclaims against the record companies and against the RIAA. In her 11-page opinion (PDF), District Judge Nancy Gertner labeled as 'curious' the record companies' opposition to televising the proceedings, since their professed reason for bringing the cases is deterrence, 'a strategy [which] effectively relies on the publicity arising from this litigation'."
Justice on dowels.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
This outta be more entertaining then all seasons of Heroes combined!
televised over the internet??
Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.
Work smarter, not harder.
One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court? Can you imagine if I stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11? Do you think the court would even hear a case where they wanted a million for my crime?
This is the new business model of the recording industry, which is exactly like the old model. Overcharge your customers and when that doesn't work, overcharge and extort from your customers to make up for shortfalls you generated because you have a crappy product.
There's only so much "drug money", oops CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops recording artists...
(Yes I'm bitter this morning; still need my meth, oops coffee.)
=Smidge=
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.
In related news, the RIAA asked that the hearing not be made available over BitTorrent...since, well, BitTorrent is evil, no matter what it is being used for...
...was not going to be televised? So much for common wisdom. :-P
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...they bought the rope, measured the proper length of it, cut it, tied it to a tree, formed one end into a noose, gingerly placed their grinning heads in the noose and tightened it, and now we get to see the looks on their faces when someone who saw their preceding actions takes the logical steps and kicks the stool out from under them.
on bittorrent?
Fitting. I wonder when the torrents of the stream will be available?
Free Martian Whores!
Just read the last page of the PDF document.
Let's all pray that the recording and subsequent broadcastings will be a success.
The current order is only for the hearing on Jan 22, as NYCL pointed out, which only involves the legal arguments for motions entered by the Defendant's counsel. Further coverage of the rest of the case will be decided then. The judge made a lot of sense in her opinion though, I especially liked this bit:
"Public" today has a new resonance, especially in this case. The claims and issues at stake involve the internet, file-sharing practices, and digital copyright protections. The Defendants are primarily members of a generation that has grown up with the internet, who get their news from it, rather than from the traditional forms of public communication, such as newspapers or television. Indeed, these cases have generated widespread public attention, much of it on the internet. Under the circumstances, the particular relief requested -- "narrowcasting" this proceeding to a public website -- is uniquely appropriate.
Nice to see judges are starting to catch up to this generation.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
The problem is, if the RIAA wins by some convoluted twist of the law (of which they've gotten quite good at twisting by this point), no amount of losses will be able to wipe the smug look from their faces after winning the case on live TV. At which point, the industry is doomed.
Never think that the RIAA is doomed. They always come back.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
Of course the RIAA wants the public to hear about this case to deter anyone downloading their stuff.
But they want people to hear it from them. Not directly from the court proceedings. Any idiot knows that your statements are only half as powerful if the other side can retort. And few people are interested in hearling both sides of the story, unless it is hassle free do hear it, they're perfectly happy when they just hear one side telling them "the truth". Do you have an idea how incredibly harder it gets to spin something when the other side can call you bluff and show that you're lying through your teeth?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
All they had to do was keep quiet. Then after the trial was televised, they could sue everyone who carried the story and everyone who downloaded (watched) it!
It would have as much merit as their other suits; how could they possibly lose?
I once heard that vampires don't show up on camera. Now we'll know one way or another!
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
Having read the order, I get the sense that the Judge really really understands what is going on and is not going to let them weasel out of their own lies.
The Judge is going to take their claims perfectly literally with no prejudice. They say that they want public knowledge of the suits, thus, she finds it "curious" that they don't want it televised. So, she takes them at their word (wanting public knowledge of the law suits) and "helps" them do what they say they claim to want to do.
Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.
They are stuck because these are counter claims, and while I'm not a lawyer, even if BMG/Sony drop the suit, I believe the counter claims live on. So, they can't drop it. They have to fight a Harvard Law Professor and his students, and it will all be public for display.
I'm going to buy some popcorn and watch.
"Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this hearing without the express written consent of the Recording Industry Association of America is prohibited and will be subjected to a fine of no less than $1 million per infraction."
The problem isn't usually someone showing you're lying through your teeth (that's hard if you choose your words correctly,) it's one of sympathy. If the audience is sympathetic to your opponent, you lose the argument, and the truth is largely irrelevant.
The best example of this is to listen to both Palestinian and Israeli experts explain a given peace plan independently. Also good is listening to a debate between pro-civil-liberties and pro-catching-terrorists (if we were to let them frame their titles) figures at a rather liberal college, and comparing who the student body listens to with how well the arguments were made. When asked to judge the quality of the debaters, students choose the debater whose position they were predisposed to agree with regardless of whether the person debated well.
--- Thousands are enslaved every day.
Can I assume it will be available through bit-torrent?
I think they are worried that a grass-roots campaign against using unreasonable statutory damages against the (non-commercial) "everyman" will be more effective than all the money they've invested / are investing in Congressional lobbying.
Of course, they are lucky that the defendent isn't a famous retired football player!
they have really ugly lawyers?
While I generally agree with your post, its worth pointing out that CBS actually bought Last.FM. And haven't shut it down yet. Makes you wonder what they want out of the deal. Maybe its all that personal information they're collecting.
One way or another, I won't let Last.FM anywhere near my computer.
Dear sbeckstead,
I represent the ACAL (American Cockroach Advocacy League). Please take this as notice that you have been served with a lawsuit for ONE BILLION DOLLARS (please visualize me holding my pinky to my mouth), for defamation of character.
The ACAL resents any comparison of the RIAA to cockroaches, as it is insulting to cockroaches. See you in court.
Sincerely,
H.M. Dewey, for
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, Attys at Law.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Let that cat out of the bag, and next thing you know, the makers of Slim Jims will start suing people!
It seems to me that since one of the characteristics of human (vs. other) language is that it is fluid and dynamic. As such, it seems to me that I can verb all the nouns I want even if I choose to use strange ways of doing so provided that I still communicate with people effectively.
Seriously, if they thought that abolishing the Constitution would bring more money into their and their customers' (the record labels') pockets, you don't think they'd do it? Given how they behave now?
This is because the RIAA is a noble and beautiful organization that spends all of its time and resources doing good for the world. I don't know why so many people are anti RIAA when the RIAA is clearly the foremost steward of bringing world peace, ending hunger, bolstering the rights of individuals, and helping music artists to make their dreams come true. The RIAA is totally, completely, and in all other ways good. It is a perfect organization. There is no bad in the RIAA.
Time to roll out that classic sentence..
Insert
download the video via Bit Torrent?
it will be televised on the 22, 14.00 ( Massachusetts time ) :P
this is the list for the other timezones for those of you who want to see it
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
IANAL and IANAmerican, but this wouldn't be a case where the work is made by the federal government and is considered public domain?
> You're modded funny, but if they were to use BitTorrent to distribute the recorded proceedings after the fact it would provide an example of an unambiguously legitimate use for such things that judges would be able to identify with. :)
You're thinking too small. For the love of all that is holy, someone just has to put a torrent of this video on The Pirate Bay.
And be sure to document all hash fails you see so we can establish whether they're trying to poison it... :]
will be televised?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
RIAA appeals ruling.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
*pictures Steven Segal in judicial robes, glaring ominously at RIAA lawyers, who are trembling as steaming wet urine soaks their trouser legs*
Judge: "My Judicial-fu is better than you!" *audio=out of sync dubbing, complete with bad Chinese accent, with much finger pointing and posturing*
RIAA Lawyer: "We're taking our marbles and going home, you bully!" *all throwing briefcases at the bailiffs for a diversion as they make their escape*
*Disclaimer: Yes, I know that Aikido is Japanese, and *-fu is Chinese...I'm just sharing the mental image that popped into my head when I read your comment! :-)
(I hold high rank belts in Aikido, Kendo, and Kenjitsu; medium [to low] rank belts in Judo and Jujitsu-I do know the difference {even though I'm only gaijin})
Thanks for the mental video...it was highly entertaining, and I actually giggled out loud!
On a less humorous note, you are entirely correct.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
However, when they began this campaign, they were basically starting from zero. I don't think most people started out thinking of copying files as a crime, but certain powers have really fought to have it labelled as "piracy" and "theft".
Not really. The software industry had laid the groundwork for that for years. "Don't copy that floppy," anybody?
Even though they've made some headway, ask most people, "Is downloading a song from the internet the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing a CD?" I don't think many people will say "yes" unless they have some sort of political stake in pushing that PR.
Of course not! That's not even close to the analogy that any sane person would think of.
The analogy that the RIAA wants you to think of is shoplifting, not B&E and burglary -- stealing from the store, not stealing from another buyer! Gah, what a terrible straw man. That's not even close to what the RIAA is pushing for because it makes no damned sense.
Good Lord, where did you get that idea from?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Now they dont want the revolution to be televised. Do they also eat a Dodger Dog from both ends at same time?
If the proceedings the public at large might see the RIAA lawyers for what they really are. A bunch of money grubbing legal thugs hell bent on keeping there billing up and any real legal issues down.
Paul E. Bahre