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."
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.
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.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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?
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
"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
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.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
You haven't listened to the new Hannah Montanna CD have you?