Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Associated Press Wants RIAA Case Webcast

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 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]."

26 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't wait for it to appear on thepiratebay

    1. Re:Haha by friesandgravy · · Score: 5, Funny

      "the ironing is delicious."

  2. Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by nhaines · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 karmatic · · 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.

    6. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by noidentity · · 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.

    7. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by TheGratefulNet · · 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."
    8. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Technician · · 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!
    9. Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... by Fear+the+Clam · · 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.

  3. Highlights for Children by conureman · · 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.
  4. The RIAA and their studios are cowards by elrous0 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 NewYorkCountryLawyer · · 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
    5. Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · 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
  5. Re:AC by troll8901 · · 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.)

  6. New case: Universal v. Universal by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · 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
  7. Brief is online by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · 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 · · 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 · · 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
  8. Re:I don't understand by dhaines · · 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.

  9. Secrecy shouldn't be possible by PhreezeVi · · 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