Slashdot Mirror
Televised RIAA Hearing Adjourned, Briefs Scheduled
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After the lower court adjourned the hearing scheduled to be televised in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, in order to give the appeals court time to determine the RIAA's petition for a writ of 'mandamus or prohibition', the appeals court set a briefing schedule. Apparently expecting amicus curiae briefs to be submitted, the appellate court set January 29th as a deadline for filing of amicus briefs. One commentator opines that 'the last thing Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG RIAA attack lawyers want is for people to see them live and in full, glorious color', while another noted Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."
I'd be embarrassed too if I was trying to extort children and grandmothers.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia?
And how have we not slapped them all in jail under the RICO laws yet?
They sure seem like the exact same thing to me...
About the only real diffrence i see at all is the real mafia has some sense of honor and respect.
And thats really stretching it.
Gertner noted that the decision did not limit streaming to the Berkman Center's Web site, saying RIAA also is free to subscribe to the CVN recording and to make it available to the public at a Web site of its choosing, provided that the group observes conditions already set by the court, including streaming unedited material. Gertner's effectively saying "You can stream it yourselves too, assholes!" which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I'm pretty sure that the RIAA is not holding this hearing. Rather, it's a hearing of a US court of law.
... and then they built the supercollider.
""Unlike a trial transcript, the broadcast of a court proceedings through the Internet will take on a life of its own in that forum. The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual,""
Oh, I get it now. So, what they're basically saying is, they do NOT want someone to use snippets of RIAA trial lawyers in the courtroom to put together a dance club video mix with a "pumping k-hole groove". (Cue Stephen Colbert)
They should make the RIAA host copies of the proceedings that people can get as torrents.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Maybe the true reason for fighting the televising is that the RIAA lawyers are now so unholy that they can no longer be caught on any type of recording device?
Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."
That sounds bad. Anyone know what this actually means for the case?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
hate the light.
They should make the RIAA pay a royalty for every downloaded viewing of the trial - that'll teach 'em.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
But I will be the first to download it!
"arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court ... had never been raised in the lower court."
If this is a writ of prohibition how is it relevant?
"arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court ... had never been raised in the lower court."
If this is a writ of prohibition how is it relevant?
That's easy. Because the 1st Circuit doesn't want to waste its time reviewing something that might not have had to be reviewed. The Judge's second order has already obviated 90% of the argument the RIAA's lawyers made in their petition.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
They also argued that the relationship between CVN, Tenenbaum and Nesson "strongly suggested that the proposed broadcast was not for in furtherance of the public interest, but rather part of a larger strategy to advance defendant's and his counsel's interests in connection with this case."
So... the RIAA are in this for the public good, but Tenenbaum is a greedy grasping malicious dastard who would sell his own grandmother for fifteen cents (US) and a cherry lollipop.
Riiiiiight. And I've got this handy bridge, care to make a bid?
The RIAA are the good guys. You can tell because they say so.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Sheesh!
This is getting as/more ridiculous as/than the SCO vs. IBM trial.
If not for the major implications riding on this whole subject, this would be as entertaining as watching 'The Three Stooges' all over again. Ludicrous!
Hmm...Is Daryl pimping out his lawyer pack to the RIAA to raise cash? Or was it just coincidence that both bunches were dredged up from the same slime pool?
'What goes around, comes around.' I hope this works here!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
You haven't listened to the new Hannah Montanna CD have you?
The RIAA is simply trying to avoid a vicious circle. What if during the televised event someone gets a call and has a song that's copyrighted by one if its members as a ringtone? The RIAA would have no choice but to sue the court for blatant copyright infringement, which of course would also need to be televised, during which someones phone will ring... etc. ad infinitum.
The RIAA is trying to save the taxpayer a lot of money! :)
The RIAA's problem is that they don't want to stream it. They want to record it to digital media with DRM and lots of audio effects to make it sound more like they want it to sound, release it on a geographically-based schedule to maximize marketing, and charge a disproportionate price.
While the RIAA's policy arguments are easily dismissed, it isn't so clear to me that they are wrong about the Massachusetts rules prohibiting broadcasting. Would someone knowledgable (e.g. Ray Beckerman) care to comment on that aspect of the argument?