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."

Comments

mafia enforcers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:mafia enforcers

[Locke2005]

Although their tactics are fairly similar, the RIAA has a lower percentage of Sicilians in it. Also, nobody will ever make a movie about the RIAA... good movies require a villain the average person can relate too. Also, I suspect the Mafia knows when they are violating the law, while the RIAA thinks they are staying within the letter of the law.

Re:mafia enforcers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Well this writer on Dow Jones Market Watch agrees with you.

Re:mafia enforcers

[shaitand]

And if the law doesn't fit what they want to do, they bring out their arsenal of paid congresscritters to change it to their liking. Usually as some footnote to a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with what they want.

Re:mafia enforcers

[dontmakemethink]

I have attended several meetings with RIAA executives specifically concerning tactics to prevent piracy among teenagers. I have proposed a marketing model that actually engages piracy in a way that benefits the musicians and labels more than simply selling the music. Nobody bought it. One particularly ignorant turd said something to the effect of "we're not turning this undustry upside-down just because some brats are stealing from us." I compared him to someone refusing to leave their home with a forest fire approaching. End of conversation.

They blame them brat kids for the industry tanking, instead of realizing that it's their fault for failing to adapt. They have been presented numerous options to address the problem, they refuse to make the necessary changes. They curse their luck as they piss into the wind.

A closer comparison would be the tobacco industry. Just be thankful that music doesn't kill anyone.

Re:mafia enforcers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They're operation is entirely legal, and, if they have a problem with a person, they don't rely on violence, or threats thereof, in order resolve their disputes. Instead, they use the court system like we are all supposed to when negotiation fails. Also, unlike the mafia, they make all their money from legitimate business that contributes to society around them.

Are you aware that in strongly contested cases they have relied on such tactics as (a) investigating high school classmates at the local high school and (b) having an investigator impersonating a 10 year old's grandmother making a call to the child's school?

Are you aware that there is almost nothing about their lawsuits that is "legal".

Are you aware that they are engaged in illegal investigations?

Are you aware that they have hired retired police officers to advise defendants that copyright infringement is a criminal matter?

Are you aware that their conduct often borders on, or crosses the boundary into, extortion?

Are you aware that they knowingly bring, and the continue to prosecute, sham lawsuits against people who they know have not infringed their copyrights?

Are you aware that their lawyers on a daily basis sign court documents which they know are false?

Are you aware that they have been deliberately violating a court order since 2004?

Are you aware that they have been deliberately flouting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

If I thought their conduct was "legal" I would resign from the Bar immediately, because I wouldn't be a part of a legal system that condoned their vile conduct.

However, the reality is that they violate the law on a daily basis, just like other organized criminals to whom we are analogizing them.

Go Judge!

[Locke2005]

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?

Re:Go Judge!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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!"

yes she is

which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?

Indeed it does

Re:Go Judge!

[EdIII]

which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?

That is a cover for their real objections to the stream itself. It's like saying, "I don't like cherries" when offered Cherry Pie but the real reason is that it makes your ass fat.

I forget the specifics, but some woman was representing Sony's interests and said on the stand that ripping a cd (simple media shifting) was exactly the same as stealing.

That's the real reason they don't want it televised. They have enjoyed a vague understanding of copyright and the exact nature of the agreement between the copyright holders and the public at large. Most people have never really understood just what it was that they bought. There has been no clear and explicit statement in laymens terms of just what rights people have to the intellectual property they bought on some continually degrading piece of plastic with grooves, magnetic tape, or piece of plastic that is all shiny. Even less so when there is nothing physical that you can pick up, just all of your music in a laptop or computer.

When the RIAA lawyers, and any Big Media interests testify what their real feelings are regarding our rights, most people would be scathingly pissed off and rightly complain that was not the deal they understood when they bought the music in the stores and later online.

No, No, No. They want to litigate in private where only the smallest tiniest slice of America ever gets to see them present their arguments, since they know their customers would object and the customers are always right .

Supernatural?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Supernatural?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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?

You might be right. Let me think about that.

Royalty

[arizwebfoot]

They should make the RIAA pay a royalty for every downloaded viewing of the trial - that'll teach 'em.

Re:New arguments?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals cou

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"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.

Never Killed Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't listened to the new Hannah Montanna CD have you?