Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has appealed the order entered several days ago allowing the January 22nd hearing in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum to be streamed over internet TV. Additionally, they've made a motion for a stay. I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order, (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge. Well, let's hope the arguments in the First Circuit will be streamed, too. Meanwhile, one commentator wonders why the tooth and nail opposition to broadcasting, since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"
I am by no means defending this action, but ... come on, you wouldn't do the same thing? They've been getting away with everything in private for so long, why ruin a good thing?
If you're asking me whether I'm surprised they're resisting it, no I'm not. If I did what they do for a living, I'd be ashamed too. The last thing I would want is for the world -- including my friends and relatives -- to see what I do.
But it's not really possible for me to imagine myself in their shoes, because -- having been born of a human mother -- I would never be in their shoes and -- being a lawyer and a gentleman -- would never do the things they do.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I think anyone reading the post knows that those were my professional opinions. I specifically said "as far as I know". However, I think it is clear that my opinions were correct, as evidenced by the fact that they have not pursued their defective "appeal" but have instead filed a "petition for mandamus or prohibition" (they don't know enough to know whether it's 'mandamus' or 'prohibition'; in fact it's prohibition). (a) Under the Federal Rules it was not an appealable order; (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, since the order was not appealable, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge, since it ought to have been directed to the appellate court, which is why the RIAA has now filed a motion for a stay in the appellate court.
I.e. even the RIAA lawyers have evidenced their awareness that all 3 statements were correct.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Oh I doubt that. Once they enter the courtroom it really comes down to whether that preceding can be re-broadcast. The litigants are in open court and thus are not subject to privacy in this regard. It's just like taking a photo at a park. You don't have to get a release from everyone involved. IANAL either but I'd venture this is the case.
In USA "anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes".
(See http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)