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?"

Comments

to educate the public

[Eric Smith]

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.

Re:to educate the public

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a matter of degrees. They simply want to lie to the public. Here's a case where they're actually getting caught in the act.

Re:to educate the public

[The Snowman]

It isn't a matter of degrees. They simply want to lie to the public. Here's a case where they're actually getting caught in the act.

Correct, they want to educate the public with their lies. However, this is not the way they want to do it.

Step one: win the court case by any means necessary, including not following court procedures, obtaining evidence illegally, etc. However, try to be discrete. Step two: after winning the court case, spin it such that the defendant was guilty as hell and you were the shining beacon of justice and honesty. Tell everyone that they need to do whatever it is you want because hey, the court just agreed that you are right.

What they don't want is for everyone to be "educated" before winning the court case. Otherwise, people will see the tactics they use and the unwashed masses may become actively hostile toward their cause.

Re:to educate the public

[causality]

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe.

Re:to educate the public

[causality]

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe. Now why'd you hafta go and bring religion into this discussion?

That's a pretty funny joke that seems all too accurate. It requires something like a religious belief to behave in the abusive and amoral fashion as, in my opinion, the RIAA has done. That is, they imbue this cause/agenda of theirs with an undue importance that, in their minds, justifies any measures they take to further it. They sacrifice even their conscience on the altar of this Cause of theirs and in their minds they can do no wrong. To me, this elevation of peddling music to a status of mattering more than human suffering is the real meaning of "idolatry" (and is probably different from how most religious people use the term). It's really not unlike the process by which peaceful democratic nations become warlike dictatorships, just on a much smaller scale.

Re:to educate the public

[KwKSilver]

in their minds they can do no wrong

An excellent example of hubris. The ancient Greeks seemed to consider it the worst possible character flaw; tragic heroes afflicted with hubris inevitably ended up dead, insane, maimed, or some combination thereof. Basically, it's playing God. That said, may the Furies perch upon the shoulders of the RIAA, its clients, and agents.

Re:to educate the public

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Actually, what they don't want is hundreds of lawyers on the internet picking apart their case and e-mailing their findings to Harvard.... Because, even the RIAA can't stand a chance of an entire army of lawyers working pro bono.

Quite true. Thing is, in the entire world, the RIAA have no friends except those on their payroll. But as for enemies, well, most anyone who knows about these cases is on the side of the RIAA's victims.

Matter of definition ...

[ScrewMaster]

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

Re:Matter of definition ...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

Correct. They have as much interest in 'educating the public' as Hitler did in making the Jews "Frei" through "Arbeit".

Re:Matter of definition ...

[ScrewMaster]

Just ignore them and focus on the matter at hand rather than going into illogical discussions about stated reasons for actions.

I disagree. There's a substantial amount of logic and reason (not to mention pure black nasty evil) on the part of the RIAA and similar organizations. This deterrence campaign was well-planned, and implemented for a specific purpose. A purpose which, when pressed, they deny vociferously and cry "but we're only protecting the rights of the artists." That they've essentially failed in their quest to make file sharing and wide-scale copyright infringement appear too dangerous is irrelevant. They caused a lot of damage along the way, and are still. That needs to stop (or be stopped) but it will never happen as long as people accept what they're doing, or worse yet, see it as "their rights under the law."

When a group dissembles to such a degree, and with such an utter lack of concern for anyone but themselves and their corporate masters, the difference between what they say and what they do is extremely important. That's particularly true when dealing with those (i.e., the bulk of the American public) who don't follow the issues here, and would naturally be inclined to take their statements at face value. It's vitally important these bastards be shown as the crooks they really are, and if this Webcast helps to do that then it's worth it. People will be able to look at what they've been claiming they're all about, and then see what they're really about, and perhaps draw some correct conclusions.

Re:Matter of definition ...

[tsm_sf]

I think it's also important to remember that Godwin's Law is a joke, a funny observation, an interesting bit of fluff. Claiming that some snide comment Godwin made invalidates an argument is kind of silly.

the point....

[budword]

The point has never been to "educate" the public. The point has been to THREATEN the public.

In this, as in everything...

[painehope]

What one says is not necessarily what one means. What one professes to do is not necessarily what one intends to do.

That is the credo of the modern world in which we live.

It is disgusting and dishonorable. But it is a fact of life. One that I've had to learn the hard way. I'm honest to a fault, but my "bullshit detectors" have been calibrated by dealing with this world in which we find ourselves. Many people (especially scientists) find this hard, since there are many wrong answers and only one right answer in many circumstances. At other times, there are no right answers, just some that are less incorrect.

And people wonder why I hate the world and would much rather deal with computers.

Intimidation not Education

[jcwynholds]

The MPAA and RIAA have been using their legal team to "educate" the same way that loan sharks use hired thugs to "educate" people about their outstanding debts.

Both the loan sharks and the **AA want their tactics and motives hidden. The message is intimidation.

I can see why now...

[advocate_one]

they want to educate the public, but don't want to be seen losing in court...

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching

[MrMista_B]

Put it on YouTube?

No.

A single DMCA complaint will remove it, and three DMCA complaints will have your account deleted entirely.

It doesn't matter if there is or is not anything in any of your videos which warrants a DMCA complaint - by posting anything that in any way threatens, or seems to threaten any corporate interest, it'll be the end of you.

Re:"They don't know enough"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Hi Ray. Do you think they're hoping that if they compile enough consecutive legal errors, then 13 wrongs will add up to a right and then they're hoping they'll win?

:)

No I think the lawyers are still in control and still trying to do anything they can think of that they can bill for.

Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work?

[Paradise Pete]

Plus if anything like that ever happened to me, where do you think the police would look?

Obviously they would contact the murder's ISP and submit a John Doe warrant based on the IP address. Case closed.