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'."

Comments

Terminology

[corywingerter]

televised over the internet??

Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.

Re:Terminology

[zarthrag]

Using my media-center, the internet is my television! ...Insensitive clod.

Re:Terminology

[DanTheStone]

Not theft, unauthorized copying. There's a difference; the cost to the owner is by decreased scarcity or potentially lost revenue, not by the loss of possession of an item with value. You can't steal thoughts and ideas, you can only copy them.

Re:Terminology

[ChromaticDragon]

I dunno... I'll hazard a guess.

The "scare tactics" of the RIAA are about more than just fear. It's about FUD: Fear; Uncertainty; Doubt.

By televised court proceedings, you may increase the Fear aspect (assuming they actually have a strong case), but you may significantly reduce your portion of Uncertainty and Doubt.

I imagine the industry wants very much to perpetuate the concept that Copyright Infringement equals theft. One doesn't even need to get into the debate of whether it is "as bad as" theft. All the RIAA/MPAA publicity efforts seem simply to hinge on the equivalence (I mean.. you wouldn't steal a car would you? huh WOULD YOU?)

The trouble is the Industry seems scared too. Although they seem to have been easily able to purchase legislation to their hearts content, they probably realize laws on the books won't matter a bit if the larger society as a whole shifts in their view of said laws. First, they won't get enforced. Second, eventually even if the laws don't get overturned, sooner or later Jury Nullification will take over. Or we might start seeing damages scaled way, WAY back to realistic levels.

Public perception of these folk may be souring greatly. These things can shift rather quickly. I believe this is what they fear.

Re:Terminology

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised?

That's easy.

Exposure of these proceedings gives information to those who must defend future cases, thus reducing their defense costs.

Re:Terminology

[nine-times]

Well, no, I'd disagree there. After all, that's the real battleground here, isn't it?

I suppose it's the battleground, in that some people are specifically trying to tie the two together. There's a specific PR campaign to change terminology so that it will change people's perception.

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".

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.

RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[Smidge207]

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=

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs

[TheSpoom]

The real problem is that the RIAA don't have a product anymore.

They used to control the means of recording. No longer, since the equipment necessary can be got for much, much cheaper than years ago.

They used to control the means of reproduction, in that they could actually mass produce your tapes / CDs for you. No longer, since stamping a CD is incredibly cheap now.

Just about the only thing they still control is radio, and even then that's being eaten into by the internet and things like Pandora and last.fm, which their lobbyists are desperately trying to kill.

Without a real business model, they're scraping for ways to maintain the position of control they used to have, and litigation is a very good way of doing just that, since most people don't have the means to actually fight them.

Well...

[Darundal]

...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.

Re:Send me a copy

[eth1]

I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.

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. :)