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.
""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?
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!
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?
You're not supposed to go to an appeals court on arguments you never made in the lower court. It's a waste of their time, and it's not fair to the lower court judge. What it means for the RIAA's petition is that it's unfounded.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean the court will refuse to hear the claims, then the riaa WILL present them to the lower court, which will then reject them, THEN the riaa will appeal that decision. Essentially amounting to at least 6 months of ridiculous nonsense to settle a few bogus claims?
"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
The general rule is that arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived. That means that the appellate court should summarily dismiss those arguments.
--AC
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.
You haven't listened to the new Hannah Montanna CD have you?
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.
Basically, the Massachusetts rules say that courtroom proceedings may be broadcast if they fall into certain categories "or by order of the court", which is generally taken to mean that the court can allow other proceedings to be broadcast at it's discretion. The RIAA wants to read that rule as "and by order of the court", limiting the court to allowing broadcasting only of the categories specified.
Also, when the RIAA appeals to the rules of the Judicial Conference, it glosses over the fact that the Judicial Conference has no authority to dictate rules to the courts under it and that no court under it has actually adopted it's proposed prohibition on broadcasting proceedings.
Basically, the Massachusetts rules say that courtroom proceedings may be broadcast if they fall into certain categories "or by order of the court", which is generally taken to mean that the court can allow other proceedings to be broadcast at it's discretion. The RIAA wants to read that rule as "and by order of the court", limiting the court to allowing broadcasting only of the categories specified. Also, when the RIAA appeals to the rules of the Judicial Conference, it glosses over the fact that the Judicial Conference has no authority to dictate rules to the courts under it and that no court under it has actually adopted it's proposed prohibition on broadcasting proceedings.
Yeah well the RIAA lawyers tore those pages out of the law books.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful