Associated Press Wants RIAA Case Webcast

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Associated Press Wants RIAA Case Webcast

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Saturday January 31, 2009 @01:19AM from the afraid-of-scrutiny dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Associated Press, The New York Times, and other major news organizations have gone to court to fight the RIAA over its attempt to thwart a court order which ruled that a hearing in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum could be streamed over the internet. The news organizations agreed with Judge Gertner, the district judge who'd granted the order, arguing : 'It is hard to imagine a hearing more deserving of public scrutiny through the same technological medium that is at the heart of this litigation'. As soon as I get a copy of the actual brief I will upload it and link to it. Another amicus brief opposing the RIAA's attempt to reverse Judge Gertner was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other First Amendment proponents and is already available online [PDF]."

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Haha by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 01:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Can't wait for it to appear on thepiratebay
1. Re:Haha by friesandgravy · 2009-01-31 01:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "the ironing is delicious."
2. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  The use of a word for anything other than it's literal intention, now that's, irony.
3. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  ney, the mateys at the bay do not post stuff like that on the bay, they give it to archive org for the world to see!
  Just like the "piratebay should have no place in society" letter that came with their award from organised content back in 2007.
  http://www.archive.org/download/PirateBayShouldHaveNoPlaceInSwedenOrTheEuropeanUnion/PirateBayShoudHaveNoPlace.pdf
  http://blog.brokep.com/2007/11/20/global-icon-status/
4. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 04:38 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  In tha't, case, so is, rai'n on your, wedd'ing, da'y.
5. Re:Haha by ElNotto · 2009-01-31 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  I can't wait to see the clips that make the Daily Show and the commentary that accompanies them. I'm sure there will be some truly exceptional material coming out of this trial.
Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by nhaines · 2009-01-31 01:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

As soon as I get a copy of the actual brief [CC] I will upload it and link to it. Another amicus brief opposing the RIAA's attempt to reverse Judge Gertner was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other First Amendment proponents and is already available online."
Thus marking the first time Slashdot has posted a breaking news story. ;)
The RIAA's actions continue to provide amusement for me. But it's all increasingly irrelevant in my life. Just like when I watch a DVD at someone else's place and I realize there's all kinds of wanings against copying and commercials at the beginning. At home, I just use VLC and immediatelly get the main menus.
The RIAA has to face the court of public opinion eventually. I think the Amazon.com MP3 store and iTunes show what remarkable success DRM-free music can have online. Unfortunately for the RIAA, so do Jamendo and Magnatunes....
1. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by cp.tar · 2009-01-31 01:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ... I watch a DVD at someone else's place and I realize there's all kinds of wanings against copying and commercials at the beginning. At home, I just use VLC and immediatelly get the main menus.
  I have long believed that those warnings only serve to make pirated copies a better-quality product, and thus more desirable.
  Now you tell me VLC is adding to the value of the legally marketed copies, making them equal in value as the pirated ones.
  There seems to be something wrong in this picture, but I can't put my finger on it...
  
  --
  Ignore this signature. By order.
2. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Dachannien · 2009-01-31 01:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Agreed, in particular because the warnings are usually unskippable and are often displayed immediately after you choose the "play movie" menu option.
  I mean, is there anyone in the US who has never seen one of those warnings? Is it really necessary to delay people's enjoyment of a movie on a DVD they legally purchased, just to tell them not to copy a movie that they don't need to copy since they already own the DVD?
3. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by cp.tar · 2009-01-31 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Is it really necessary to delay people's enjoyment of a movie on a DVD they legally purchased, just to tell them not to copy a movie that they don't need to copy since they already own the DVD?
  Of course it is.
  After all, some people may have learned to read since the last DVD they saw.
  Additionally, won't somebody please think of the children? If these notices were removed, how would the children learn about the possibility of copying?
  
  --
  Ignore this signature. By order.
4. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by jonwil · 2009-01-31 02:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The ironic thing is that you have to use an illegal program (VLC) to skip warnings on a DVD that YOU bought, warnings telling you not to copy the DVD (that you already own and dont need to copy)
5. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  ...come again? How is VLC illegal?
6. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by commodore64_love · 2009-01-31 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Since when is VLC Player illegal?
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
7. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by karmatic · 2009-01-31 03:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Since when is VLC Player illegal?
  In the US, since October 28, 1998.
  Besides the (incredibly large) array of patent issues which make it difficult to use in a corporate environment, it would be very easy to make the case that VLC is a prohibited circumvention device. It breaks DRM, has built-in transcoding, and will very easily write files or stream content.
  You could also make the case that the DRM isn't an effective access control measure, but the courts have set that bar really low. It would be unlikely that such a case would prevail.
8. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by noidentity · 2009-01-31 03:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I hate that unskippable crap. Even once you've gotten past the warnings, you have to sit through an animated main menu, then some stupid animation and sound effect transition to the actual feature. I really wouldn't mind just putting the disc in and seeing the damn feature start immediately.
  Tip for those stuck with plain-old DVD players: insert disc, wait until it starts playing, hit stop, then hit menu. This often skips the usually-unskippable crap before the menu.
9. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  I believe those notices are similar to how many systems have/had /etc/motd entries that said "Unauthorised use prohibited" (or similar.)
  If a movie *didn't* ship with that garbage at the front then if you did copy it (or use it in a manner in which you're not supposed to), then it may be possible to argue, in court, that because there was no notice saying that you couldn't do what you did, you were therefore entitled to do it.
  Now if you watched a movie that had those banners, using a client that allowed you to skip them (because it ignored "something" on the disc), I don't know where the dice fall.
10. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by TheGratefulNet · 2009-01-31 04:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  1) anydvd
  2) dvdclone
  both from slysoft (sort of).
  take friggin control back! stop letting THEM control the buttons on your goddamned remote control.
  I rip all my dvd for my HTPC and I never have to sit thru strong-arm intimidation 'commercials' and PUO (the tech term for the 'you cannot skip this part') shit.
  anyone who watches a regular dvd and DOES sit thru that crap is a chump, sorry to say. we've had the ability to break dvd anti-consumerisms for years. each time you let that crap seep thru you are letting them win.
  filter the crap. rip to disk, select the chapters YOU want and watch what YOU want.
  then seal up the disc, store it (heh, or return it) and that's that. no more 'warnings'. they are for children, and stupid children at that.
  get a copy of anydvd. free yourself from the industry thugs and start watching movies again instead of threats.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
11. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by yakumo.unr · 2009-01-31 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Funny that was on of the big selling points of Blu Ray (or was it HD DVD? sorry, I totally forget) that the movie started immediately.
  How has that panned out ? 10 minutes searching I can't find anything about it any more, but I may just be missing the exact terms.
12. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by lysergic.acid · 2009-01-31 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  i think what's worse is that every DVD title displays different menu behaviors. some DVDs will play automatically after the disc is inserted; some will take you to a menu. some will allow you to hit the "play" button on your remote to play; others make you actually select "play" form the menu and hit the "enter"/"ok"/"select" button on your DVD player remote. some DVDs make you watch copyright warnings multiple times; some play a bunch of previews/ads--which on some titles you can skip, but not on others.
13. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Technician · 2009-01-31 04:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Geexbox is a portable version. Stick in it a PC, boot it, remove the ejected CD and insert the movie. It writes nothing to the hard drive leaving no recored of the DMCA violation.
  http://www.geexbox.org/en/index.html
  As a bonus, it in an introduction to the many versions of Linux to non-geek types. Print up a few disks and pass them out at work.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
14. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Kopiok · 2009-01-31 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  The trailer skipping prevention is the worst! The menu button never works (gives you that "cannot preform operation" sign). I always have to hit the skip button to go through every trailer one-by-one. It's ludicrous.
15. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  More to the point, it's stealing - If you can't skip a 30 second ad every time you insert the disk, then a series with lots episodes (eg Jeeves & Wooster has a 30 second "You wouldn't steal..." ad at the beginning and if you watch it one episode at a time (switching off/removing disk between episodes), you'll see it about 30 times or 15 mins) you'll use a lot of your time and electricty, for which you have paid, in waiting for the ad to pass. If they want to advertise with unskippable ads, it's not unreasonable to expect them to pay for the advertising slot; I think I'll have to start charging them for the privilege of advertising in my home.
16. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Ciggy · 2009-01-31 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Probably the same place as if it was a book: at the front of [almost?] every book there is a copyright message with what you may and may not do with the book; it is up to you if you read it or not - if you choose to ignore the warning and did what was prohibited, then the full force of copyright law (as appropriate) would most likely come down on you.
  
  --
  
  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
  A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
17. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 06:29 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  That can't be Blu-Ray. I have it on good authority (hearsay) that BR discs don't even display the main menu within a minute of inserting the disc.
18. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Fear+the+Clam · 2009-01-31 06:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Jeeves & Wooster has a 30 second "You wouldn't steal..." ad at the beginning
  Which is pretty funny considering that Jeeves & Wooster starts off with Wooster in court for having stolen a policeman's helmet.
19. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by 644bd346996 · 2009-01-31 06:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Thus marking the first time Slashdot has posted a breaking news story. ;)
  It's not that surprising, is it? I mean, Ray Beckerman does have the root password to slashdot, doesn't he?
20. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Sir_Lewk · 2009-01-31 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  Mod parent and great-grandparent up, most people don't realize this but it's true.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
21. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Awesome.
22. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by triffid_98 · 2009-01-31 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. Apparently warnings and commercials were deemed necessary back in the 80's on VHS, we just forget because we could fast forward past them. Hurray for modern technology... and for DVDDecrypter/Gordian Knot. Too bad Jose SeisCervesa has no clue what I'm going on about right now.
  
  I mean, is there anyone in the US who has never seen one of those warnings? Is it really necessary to delay people's enjoyment of a movie on a DVD they legally purchased, just to tell them not to copy a movie that they don't need to copy since they already own the DVD?
23. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Achromatic1978 · 2009-01-31 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  HD DVD starts pretty quickly... AFTER the player has started up, and you insert the disc. My HD DVD player takes about 45 seconds to boot.
24. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Therefore+I+am · 2009-01-31 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  And is it really smart for the movie industry to put these warnings on DVD discs that could easily last 20 years? ...... The stupidity of it all will be a source of amusement, derision and irritation at the built in delay long after the industry has folded and been replaced by something more intelligent.
25. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by legirons · 2009-01-31 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  ... I watch a DVD at someone else's place and I realize there's all kinds of wanings against copying and commercials at the beginning. At home, I just use VLC and immediatelly get the main menus.
  I have long believed that those warnings only serve to make pirated copies a better-quality product, and thus more desirable.
  They also make Mac OS X and Apple software less valuable, since the DVD player in Mac OS X actually implements all those "not permitted to fast-forward" menus (in stark contrast to every other software or hardware DVD player)
26. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 10:07 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Just to point out, you may own the physical DVD, but you don't own the contents of the DVD - you only Licence that...when they stop being fraudulent with their advertising and honestly state that you've bought a licence to the content of the DVD and not the DVD and its contents, I'd have more sympathy for them.
27. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-31 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  The RIAA's actions continue to provide amusement for me. But it's all increasingly irrelevant in my life.
  The substance has never been relevant to my life, either. But when schoolyard bullies gang up on some defenseless person... it is relevant to your life and to mine. That is what brought me into this fight.
  
  Which makes this particular round of briefing, where the RIAA goons are completely overmatched, some good "amusement".
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
28. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by deimtee · 2009-01-31 15:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, I bought it, I own it.
  There are legal restrictions on what I can do with it, basically I can't make and sell copies, but unless I sign a licence agreement before I pay and accept delivery, then there is no licence. You don't get to add conditions after the sale.
  
  --
  I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
29. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by cp.tar · 2009-01-31 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  If a movie *didn't* ship with that garbage at the front then if you did copy it (or use it in a manner in which you're not supposed to), then it may be possible to argue, in court, that because there was no notice saying that you couldn't do what you did, you were therefore entitled to do it.
  Well, the movie might ship with that garbage printed on the cover.
  This idea was invented by Shampoo.
  
  --
  Ignore this signature. By order.
30. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Sir_Lewk · 2009-01-31 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  If only it actually worked that way in practice.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
31. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  So why is VLC Player still allowed to exist? Why haven't they been sued?
  As for skipping the "don't copy" warnings, I don't see that as a violation. A DVD may include the code for "disable skip or fast-forward" but that doesn't mean the player is obligated to listen. For example my Sony player has a "fast play" button that zips right through the warnings and advertisements at 1.4x speed
  I don't know anything about VLC's transcoding or copying abilities. I've never seen that option on my copy.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
32. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  If it wasn't for the unskippable crap, when would you be getting the snacks and beers...?
33. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting... my copy of Jeeves and Wooster doesn't have that ad. Must have been a mix-up with the burning process, I guess.
34. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Intron · 2009-02-02 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  If a movie *didn't* ship with that garbage at the front then if you did copy it (or use it in a manner in which you're not supposed to), then it may be possible to argue, in court, that because there was no notice saying that you couldn't do what you did, you were therefore entitled to do it.
  Sure. Just like those people who aren't walking around with "Don't kill me" signs are risking being murdered, because their killers would have no basis for being prosecuted.
  
  --
  Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Highlights for Children by conureman · 2009-01-31 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

It'll be interesting to compare how the various Media Entities spin (or even cover?) this.

--
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
1. Re:Highlights for Children by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Highlights for Children
  like this?
2. Re:Highlights for Children by gEvil+(beta) · 2009-01-31 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  It'll be interesting to compare how the various Media Entities spin (or even cover?) this.
  
  Yes. What will happen when organizations like the New York Times or the Associated Press hear about what these guys are trying to do?
  
  --
  This guy's the limit!
3. Re:Highlights for Children by conureman · 2009-01-31 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Its an obscure reference to TFA. Sorry, I know I shouldn't do that to you.
  
  --
  The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Wights Invisible by mfh · 2009-01-31 01:33 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Sadly, the typical Wight cannot be seen on film. The world will have to make do with a sketch artist's version of this case.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
1. Re:Wights Invisible by cp.tar · 2009-01-31 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, the typical Wight cannot be seen on film.
  That's why they will record them digitally.
  
  --
  Ignore this signature. By order.
2. Re:Wights Invisible by mfh · 2009-01-31 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  That's why they will record them digitally.
  Bad logic, is bad. The reason a typical wight cannot be recorded on film, is the same as the reason it cannot be recorded digitally. You would need something that can record evil, some kind of evil-o-meter, but that wouldn't look as COOL as a decent hand drawn sketch of one.
  Imagine a bingo hall. Now imagine that fat lady smoking till her eyes turn yellow. Now imagine her somehow translucent and also dark with brimming evil.
  That's the thing that is utterly TERRIFIED of a wight.
  Wights are impervious to light and can only be seen by the human eye under certain conditions. Namely you have to be sitting at a table with a 20 sider in your hand, and you MIGHT get a glimpse of one. But only for a few seconds. They are pretty tricky. Creatures spawned of Pazuzu, some say.
  
  --
  The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
3. Re:Wights Invisible by cp.tar · 2009-01-31 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's why they will record them digitally.
  Bad logic, is bad. The reason a typical wight cannot be recorded on film, is the same as the reason it cannot be recorded digitally.
  Ah. Thank you for the explanation.
  I'd thought it works just like with the MP3s of songs with backmasked subliminal messages. I mean, think of it logically: if you have a backmasked subliminal message, it is not something readily apparent â" just the kind of stuff compression algorithms remove.
  
  --
  Ignore this signature. By order.
The RIAA and their studios are cowards by elrous0 · 2009-01-31 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Faced with exposure to the daylight, they'll just drop the case. They always drop the case when the kid whose lunch money they're trying to steal actually fights back.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 01:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Perhaps so, but still... It's nice to have mainstream media to wake up. Definitely should make the RIAA's campaigns (both in lobbying and in changing public opinion) harder...
2. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Ashriel · 2009-01-31 01:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The beauty of this, and what makes this case different from all the others involving the RIAA, is that they're facing a countersuit - they can't drop the case and have it go away, unless they can convince Nesson & Tenenbaum and a team of Harvard law students to give up as well.
3. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-31 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Faced with exposure to the daylight, they'll just drop the case. They always drop the case when the kid whose lunch money they're trying to steal actually fights back.
  I would say you've got their number.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
4. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by commodore64_love · 2009-01-31 02:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I received one of those extortionate letters ("Pay up or else"). I sent an email to the RIAA CEO to thank him for sending fuel for the fireplace, and please send more to help me keep warm this winter. ;-)
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
5. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Ihmhi · 2009-01-31 03:32 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Considering the popularity of this case and the argument the judge has made, couldn't pretty much any other defense lawyer in any other case make the same request? RIAA wants to educate the public, so why not?
  The RIAA either accepts it and goes through with the case, or they drop the case altogether. It's win-win. It's like we have the plans to the Death Star!
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
6. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-31 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Considering the popularity of this case and the argument the judge has made, couldn't pretty much any other defense lawyer in any other case make the same request? RIAA wants to educate the public, so why not? The RIAA either accepts it and goes through with the case, or they drop the case altogether. It's win-win. It's like we have the plans to the Death Star!
  Judge Gertner's decision is a significant precedent that will be helpful to all lawyers representing RIAA defendants who want to open the proceedings to public scrutiny. The briefs that have been submitted by the amici curiae will also be great ammunition. And if the 1st Circuit blasts the RIAA, then that will be a super precedent.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
7. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by dosun88888 · 2009-01-31 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  867-5309
8. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by ultranova · 2009-01-31 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  The RIAA either accepts it and goes through with the case, or they drop the case altogether. It's win-win. It's like we have the plans to the Death Star!
  
  AFAIK the RIAA is facing a counterclaim and thus can't drop it. They're being counterattacked. Put these facts together and it becomes obvious that "It's a trap!"
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
9. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  I especially love their threatening someone (yet again) with specious Rule 11 sanction motions. If it'd been me, I'd have to fire my lawyer on the spot over crap like that- it can propagate back to me in varying nasty ways.
10. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Svartalf · 2009-01-31 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, they CAN'T drop the case. This is a hearing for the Opposition's counter-suit. The only thing they can do here is move to dismiss (which is what they're doing here...) and if the Judge doesn't buy the motion's premises, she won't do anything of the sort.
  This is very, very far removed from what they want happening. Especially if it's televised.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
11. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by conureman · 2009-01-31 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Are they covering this? The only news I've found is from Ray Beckerman's blog, and on Slashdot.
  It's not scrolling across the bottom of the newscast.
  
  --
  The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
12. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by rhizome · 2009-01-31 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, they CAN'T drop the case. This is a hearing for the Opposition's counter-suit.
  This is an important point that nobody has distinguished (including me) so far. Thanks.
  
  --
  When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
13. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2009-01-31 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  <STEWIE>
  Damn you, Tommy Tutone!
  </STEWIE>
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
14. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Hey! Where did you get my girlfriends number!?
  I'm going to ask her to change it.
15. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by lawpoop · 2009-01-31 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Can you tell us more?
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
  -- Pablo Picasso
16. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Ihmhi · 2009-01-31 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  RE: the below posts about they can't drop the case - yes, I know. The point I'm making is for other cases, this might establish a precedent where the defense lawyer can automatically bring this up as a defense tactic. It's practically undefeatable.
  Question for Mr. Beckerman: I'm pretty sure precedents are related to district/jurisdiction, so a precedent set in the 1st circuit wouldn't apply to any of the other circuits. If this goes through, will it only stand in that particular circuit or could it be used (and cited as precedent) in any court nationwide?
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
17. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-31 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Are they covering this? The only news I've found is from Ray Beckerman's blog, and on Slashdot. It's not scrolling across the bottom of the newscast.
  Well, do you count AP and NYT as big media? They're throwing their weight behind this Webcast.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
18. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-31 14:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Question for Mr. Beckerman: I'm pretty sure precedents are related to district/jurisdiction, so a precedent set in the 1st circuit wouldn't apply to any of the other circuits. If this goes through, will it only stand in that particular circuit or could it be used (and cited as precedent) in any court nationwide?
  It's a binding precedent only in the First Circuit. However, depending on what it says, it could be persuasive authority everywhere else.
  
  --
  Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
19. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  No, faced with exposure to the daylight, they'll shout in a tragicomic way and then turn to dust.
20. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by commodore64_love · 2009-02-01 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  They can't sue me if they can't find me.
  I hear Florida's nice this time of year. ;-)
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
DMCA take-down notice by paulthomas · 2009-01-31 01:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Exhibits A, B, C, and G will be grounds for a DMCA takedown notice. The youtube version will have the sound muted so as not to leak any copyrighted material without just compensation.
1. Re:DMCA take-down notice by cp.tar · 2009-01-31 01:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Oh, don't worry. We'll just upload it to various P2P networks and torrents mistitled. Disguised as porn, more likely than not.
  
  --
  Ignore this signature. By order.
2. Re:DMCA take-down notice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  tar -xjf cp.tar.bz2
3. Re:DMCA take-down notice by Xenographic · 2009-01-31 15:45 · Score: 2
  
  > Oh, don't worry. We'll just upload it to various P2P networks and torrents mistitled. Disguised as porn, more likely than not.
  "Hot, barely legal action! Watch RIAA lawyers get screwed!"
  Hmm ...
  Yeah, that could work...
4. Re:DMCA take-down notice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 15:49 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, don't worry. We'll just upload it to various P2P networks and torrents mistitled. Disguised as porn, more likely than not.
  But it's about children... so it's child porn! Quick, call in the NY Attorney General!
5. Re:DMCA take-down notice by cp.tar · 2009-01-31 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know him. But maybe NewYorkCountryLawyer can help.
  
  --
  Ignore this signature. By order.
AC by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 02:08 · Score: 0

AC supports AP!
Go ninja, go ninja, go!
1. Re:AC by troll8901 · 2009-01-31 02:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Troll supports NYCL in his (among many others) fight to expose the RIAA's wrongdoings.
  (Crowd cheering) New York Country Lawyer! New York Country Lawyer!
  (Cheerleaders in mini-skirts rushing out excitedly to hug NYCL and toss him in the air.)
New case: Universal v. Universal by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-31 02:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Am I the only person to find it interesting that in this confrontation, NBC Universal -- a subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal -- is fighting against UMG Recordings -- another subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. Re:New case: Universal v. Universal by Ihmhi · 2009-01-31 03:34 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Aren't parent companies like families? Because Thanksgiving always goes off without a hitch back home...
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
2. Re:New case: Universal v. Universal by digitalunity · 2009-01-31 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I find it amusing in the same way train wrecks are amusing... until you find out it was a passenger rail.
  
  --
  You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
3. Re:New case: Universal v. Universal by ultranova · 2009-01-31 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  I find it amusing in the same way train wrecks are amusing... until you find out it was a passenger rail.
  
  At which point someone uploads pics to /b/, someone else rule34s them, and someone makes a joke in poor taste on Slashdot.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
4. Re:New case: Universal v. Universal by hobbit · 2009-01-31 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, if my brother went off the rails, threatening the future of the whole family, I'd have a word with him, too.
  
  --
  "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
5. Re:New case: Universal v. Universal by TaoPhoenix · 2009-01-31 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  The legal implications sound fantastic. Pretzel anyone?
  
  --
  My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
6. Re:New case: Universal v. Universal by BlueStrat · 2009-01-31 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only person to find it interesting that in this confrontation, NBC Universal -- a subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal -- is fighting against UMG Recordings -- another subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal?
  Apparently Vivendi/Universal didn't do a thorough job of replacing all of NBCs' upper-management with the "Wights" mentioned farther up in the discussion. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the next meeting between Vivendi/Universal and NBC top management. As they say in movie-promo blurbs; "..and hilarity ensues!".
  Somebody's gonna lose a bonus!
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
7. Re:New case: Universal v. Universal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-02 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  This doesn't surprise me at all. Frank Zappa called it, "Creative Accounting".
  This can serve two purposes:
  1. Write-down the total taxable income for the period since there will be X dollars being paid out.
  2. Collect insurance money against liability and lawsuits.
  Pick either or both, and you will probably be close to correct.
Brief is online by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-31 02:57 · Score: 5, Informative

The actual brief is now online.

Submitting parties are Associated Press, New York Times, Courtroom Television Network, Dow Jones & Co., Gannett Co. Inc., The Hearst Corp., Incisive Media, National Public Radio, NBC Universal Inc., Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The E.W. Scripps Co., Tribune Co., and Washington Post Digital.

NBC Universal is a sister company of one of the plainiffs, UMG Recordings, since both are owned in whole or in part by Vivendi/Universal.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. Re:Brief is online by danwesnor · 2009-01-31 03:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Above please find a list of news organizations that have never written an article about the RIAA's legal abuses, thus keeping the whole thing out of most mass media. This thing deserves to get more widespread publication than Boing Boing, Slashdot, and Ars, but unless you have drunk celebrities or dead people, mass media could care less.
2. Re:Brief is online by cffrost · 2009-01-31 05:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  [...] mass media could care less.
  That's good, right? That they don't care less, even though they could?
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
3. Re:Brief is online by BlueStrat · 2009-01-31 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why does this seem like a bad remake of the courtroom scene from the Jim Carey movie "Liar, Liar!"?
  Especially the part of the scene where, when opposition makes an extremely-damaging motion, Careys' lawyer-character Reeves stands and shouts; "I Object, Your Honor!!" Judge; "..And why is that, Mr. Reeves?" Carey; "Because it's devastating to my case!!!". Judge; "Overruled." Reeves; "Good call!".
  :D
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Not that unusual, I think by Mathinker · 2009-01-31 04:12 · Score: 1

Sony, for example, has been noted to be rather schizophrenic, also; its content producing divisions dreams of ever more secure/draconian DRM, while its consumer electronics division would prefer no DRM whatsoever (or at least, no new DRM systems which only make consumer devices more costly and complicated to produce and less user-friendly).
1. Re:Not that unusual, I think by gnasher719 · 2009-01-31 05:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Sony, for example, has been noted to be rather schizophrenic, also; its content producing divisions dreams of ever more secure/draconian DRM, while its consumer electronics division would prefer no DRM whatsoever (or at least, no new DRM systems which only make consumer devices more costly and complicated to produce and less user-friendly).
  I bet Apple makes more money selling iPods than Sony makes selling music. And if you go back a few years in time, the music player market was there for Sony to take, or at least to have a good go at trying to take it. I have no doubt Sony could have created a really good player that would have given the iPod a run for its money, and because of their music division they threw it away.
I don't understand by esocid · 2009-01-31 04:36 · Score: 1

Why do they object to the streaming, when the judge allowed cameras in the courtroom? Is it because they object to giving it even more publicity? Like everything else the MAFIAA does, this confounds me.

--
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
1. Re:I don't understand by dhaines · 2009-01-31 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Finally, we may be seeing the RIAA meet their perfect storm:
  - They can't quietly drop the case.
  - They've always tried to publicize their cause, but now they fight publicity.
  - The more they fight publicity, the more they get.
  - They worry video will be remixed, conveniently ignoring how it also creates an accessible authoritative record.
  It seems the RIAA has no argument here without contradicting themselves.
  This just reeks of awesome.
2. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'll bring cookies to the party. ^^
Re:The RIAA CEO by TaoPhoenix · 2009-01-31 04:50 · Score: 1

Try this.
If you graft his letter into some other equally cleverly repurposed music they provide from somewhere, does that make him an Artist? Then can you wiggle their rules such they have to "treat him like they treat an artist on their roster"?
You would send him back his rightfully earned $21.99 plus $7.88 Handling fee and thank him for his work! Remember to buy your second copy for the car.
Kurt Godel FTW!
(Whose work showed that data is data, and the context is selectible.)

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Secrecy shouldn't be possible by PhreezeVi · 2009-01-31 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why is it possible that the RIAA can even "ask" to not have the case tried in full view of the public? I find it extraordinary that we allow any of our national processes not related to sensitive national matters, or personal matters (rape trials etc.) to occur behind closed doors. How is it that these people so easily forget who they work for?
Any trial dealing with business (and most importantly businesses that can lobby governments and have new laws enacted) should be 100% transparent and broadcast so that the public can stay informed. The judicial system, along with every other section of government, belongs to the people and it is ultimately the people who have to live with the decisions made. Not to mention pay for them.
--
PhreezeVi
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Reverse by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 09:58 · Score: 0

RIAA's attempt to reverse Judge Gertner
Reverse, as in reverse engineer? Surely thats aginst the DMCA!
1. Re:Reverse by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-31 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  Barry? Barry, get back in the basement. Seriously, drop the oreos and get back in the basement.
Anyone Want to Guess... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2009-01-31 13:50 · Score: 1

Anyone want to guess that the RIAA will drop this case rather than allow even these hearings to be telecast?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:the crap at the beginning by cheros · 2009-02-01 03:49 · Score: 1

We should vow that if we ever get to present to the MPAA we should
a. lock the doors so nobody can get out
b. read the copyright notice for your presentation in full - through a loudhailer
c. introduce them to at least 3 other services which have no bearing on the topic of the presentation (that takes care of the preview rubbish).
d. then refuse to present because they gave you the wrong room. Zone limiting doesn't allow you to present in any but the right location.
So there :-)

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
The real reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-01 10:51 · Score: 0

One of the best arguments against video cameras in courtrooms is one which the RIAA can't make: Lawyers are terribly egotistical and will wind up talking to the cameras.
"Oh no, you can't allow that, we might get addicted to being on TV!"