Slashdot Mirror
Associated Press Wants RIAA Case Webcast
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]."
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.
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.
... 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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...