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'."
CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops record execs...
Fixed. The real problems are/were record companies who were addicted to printing their own money and a market that thinks/thought that making 200%+ profit is/was piss poor performance. Fortunately, the recording industry is finally coming around to the notion that lawyers are only good for collecting sort-term, high-gain revenue, not suing grandma for her Dale Jr. poster.
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.
Well first, even if you take the RIAA's side fully, a reasonable person would admit that it's copyright infringement, and not "theft". You can argue that copyright infringement is as bad as theft, but it's not theft.
Second, the complaint isn't that they're trying to fight copyright infringement, but rather their methods of fighting copyright infringement. Surely methods and means can matter. I can fight against injustice using methods that are themselves unjust.
Can we agree to that much, at least? At least as a starting point to discuss exactly how immoral copyright infringement is, and whether the RIAA's methods are just or unjust?
No. Stealing the product of their labour would involve nicking the master copy they made, or possibly shoplifting a CD (although then you're stealing from the shop rather than the artist). An infringing copy removes nothing from their possession except the money that you might or might not have spent on a legal copy.
Both are illegal, but they aren't the same thing, and really the only reason to persist in not splitting that hair is if you have some motive for "copyright infringement" to be considered exactly equal to "theft". The most obvious motive being that theft sounds more serious and so people are less likely to choose to do it if they think of it in those terms.
Thankfully we are not undergoing a transition to Newspeak, so there is no need to eliminate terms from our vocabulary. There is a distinction between the 2 things and no reason to lump them together under one word, so please stop trying to do so.