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'."

3 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Terminology by tsalmark · · Score: 5, Informative

    Televised means remote vision: that can happen over the internet as well as a TV. Actually the article uses televised in a general sense and uses the term narrowcast when going into details. which works for me.

  2. Re:Terminology by Krinsath · · Score: 5, Informative

    Television (from Merriam-Webster) - an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound (emphasis mine)

    televised over the internet - means that the television is going out over the Internet to computer endpoints. That the television SET is often abbreviated as television is simply laziness and a bastardization of the language, not that the usage in the summary is incorrect.

  3. Nonono, you got it wrong by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.