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]."
Can't wait for it to appear on thepiratebay
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.
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.
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)
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.)
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
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.