Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Argument About Streaming To Be Streamed

Posted by Soulskill on from the who-streams-the-streamers dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the district court ruled that an oral argument about the constitutionality of statutory damages could be streamed, and the RIAA has been fighting that with a petition for 'mandamus or prohibition' in the appeals court, which is opposed by the press. Interestingly, it now turns out that the appeals court's oral argument about the streaming will itself be recorded and then streamed. It is hard to imagine how a court which routinely streams its own oral arguments can rule that it is somehow inappropriate for similar oral arguments in the district court to be streamed as well."

26 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Bring it on! by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The truth shall set you free!

    Stream away!

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  2. But will it be recorded by mizzouxc · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if the RIAA will attempt to sue the court system for this as well as storing a copy in some audio format? You know, they need records (pun intended)

    1. Re:But will it be recorded by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      wouldn't surprise me for them to sue the court claimin' they are owners of the copy writes to it

    2. Re:But will it be recorded by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure couldn't hurt. I'm bet it'll be more interesting than Brittney Spears Album #2983

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    3. Re:But will it be recorded by shentino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually if I remember correctly from Business Law, reproduction during a court proceeding is considered fair use. Along with legislation and "parody or satire".

  3. Dammit... by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Funny

    This article just put my brain into an infinite loop. Thanks a lot, RIAA.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  4. Dear Editors by Aranykai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Being a friday evening, I entreat you to please avoid using "stream", "streamed", and "streaming" seven times within as many lines of text. Many of us have already been drinking and you are hurting our brains.

    Thank you,
    Drunk Sladhsot Reader.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    1. Re:Dear Editors by squidfood · · Score: 5, Funny

      I entreat you to please avoid using "stream", "streamed", and "streaming" seven times within as many lines of text.

      Those responsible for streaming this stream of streaming streams have been streamed.

    2. Re:Dear Editors by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I entreat you to please avoid using "stream", "streamed", and "streaming" seven times within as many lines of text.

      Those responsible for streaming this stream of streaming streams have been streamed.

      In Soviet Russia, it is the streams that would have been streamed, instead of the other way around.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  5. I'd expect the decision to hinge on whether ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the arguments might have to expose some information that should be under seal.

    And I fail to see how anything like that might come up in a constitutionality-of-statutory-damages argument.

    But IANAL. (Hi, NYCL!)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:I'd expect the decision to hinge on whether ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd expect the decision to hinge on whether the arguments might have to expose some information that should be under seal.
      And I fail to see how anything like that might come up in a constitutionality-of-statutory-damages argument. But IANAL.

      There is no way anything like that might come up. The RIAA lawyers just don't want the public to see what goes on in these cases, and don't want the defendants' lawyers in other cases to have access to the information.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:I'd expect the decision to hinge on whether ... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, I just read an article off your website, and while it made good and obvious sense that the RIAA wouldn't want to be publicly embarrassed, I had never put together just how much control over the information they really have, and how crucial this control of information is to the legal campaign they're waging.

      I mean, it's as if they're waging a thousand-front war and winning on the basis of a gimmicky weapon, and on each of the fronts, their enemies are completely unable to communicate with one another and unsure what strategies to pursue.

      Who else is getting sued? Who else is even fighting the suit? Who else is settling? How much did they settle for? The only people who know the full details are the ones bringing the lawsuits. As best I can tell, from your writeup, it seems that even the COURTS don't know what's been done previously, as the RIAA brings motion after motion filled with reasons to join a number of cases that have already been denied several times.

      What a brilliant and strange strategy. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even think of another possible life example for something like this, never mind a legal one. Has anything like this ever been done before?

    3. Re:I'd expect the decision to hinge on whether ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, I just read an article off your website, and while it made good and obvious sense that the RIAA wouldn't want to be publicly embarrassed, I had never put together just how much control over the information they really have, and how crucial this control of information is to the legal campaign they're waging.

      I mean, it's as if they're waging a thousand-front war and winning on the basis of a gimmicky weapon, and on each of the fronts, their enemies are completely unable to communicate with one another and unsure what strategies to pursue.

      Who else is getting sued? Who else is even fighting the suit? Who else is settling? How much did they settle for? The only people who know the full details are the ones bringing the lawsuits. As best I can tell, from your writeup, it seems that even the COURTS don't know what's been done previously, as the RIAA brings motion after motion filled with reasons to join a number of cases that have already been denied several times.

      What a brilliant and strange strategy. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even think of another possible life example for something like this, never mind a legal one. Has anything like this ever been done before?

      You've expressed it perfectly. And no, there's never been anything like this insanity before. Which is why, I think, the courts were caught off guard by it. Had they been more vigilant, like the courts of Canada and the Netherlands, this would have been nipped in the bud 5 1/2 years ago.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. Recusal/change of venue? by CWRUisTakingMyMoney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the court is to decide on the acceptability of something they do (i.e., streaming), can the RIAA fight for a change of venue? I mean, you wouldn't want a Ten-Commandments-in-the-courtroom case to be decided in a courtroom where the Ten Commandments are on the wall, right? Usually, if there's a conflict of interest, the judge can just recuse him/herself, but that wouldn't work here. Can RIAA put up a straight-faced argument about changing venue (say, to a court they think might be more friendly anyway)?

    --
    Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
    1. Re:Recusal/change of venue? by silanea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think so (but hey, it's the US legal system; common sense does seldom apply). Using a certain common-place technology is vastly different from openly supporting a specific faith/school of thought. Nobody in their right mind would call a judge who handles a case about a car driver hitting a pedestrian biased just because he drove to the court house in his car.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    2. Re:Recusal/change of venue? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I honestly don't think them streaming video is at all relevant. Courtrooms are open to the public, and often open to cameras -- unless there is a compelling reason that what is said in the courtroom needs to be kept secret from the public.....

      I agree.

      You're right that this court has already seemingly determined that there's nothing wrong with the actual act of streaming court arguments, as evidenced by them doing so themselves.

      Correct.

      That doesn't mean they can't impartially hear arguments over whether or not there is something specific to this case that would deserve that protection.

      Correct.

      As far as changing venue, I'm pretty sure that's not an option for an appeal.

      Certainly not in this case. It might be if all of the judges were shareholders in one of the parties, or something like that.

      Changes of venue are for when they don't feel they can get a fair trial--and since they're the plaintiffs and brought suit in this particular jurisdiction themselves, I'd say that argument flies out the window pretty immediately. That said, this isn't a trial -- this is an appeal of a particular order made by the trial judge. The best I could see them doing is recusing themselves, but I've also never heard any precedent of an entire court recusing itself from a decision. It would be highly unlikely if it's even possible.

      Correct.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  7. The real reason by belmolis · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think we should give credit to the RIAA. They no doubt realize that exposing children to the persistent irrationality of their arguments might retard their cognitive growth and reduce their faith in the legal system. In opposing the broadcast, they're just thinking of the children.

    1. Re:The real reason by cheros · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess there's also the desire not to worry people by showing in real time what the result of such retarded cognitive development would be..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  8. No streaming... by sinij · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously RIAA lawyers are planning to spontaneously burst into song and dance and don't want people to pirate the show.

    1. Re:No streaming... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      If anyone would like to turn this idea into a skit, I'm interested in participating :) o/~ I am the very model of a modern major asshole... o/~

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. U.S Supreme Court by lxrslh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    denies broadcasting of its oral arguments, although sometimes they make them available later. Why should we be surprised that any lower court does the same?

  10. RIAA's problem with streaming of this case. . . by kimvette · · Score: 4, Funny

    The RIAA's problem with streaming of this case is that some of their members' words and potentially "copyrighted content" will be copied to the interwebs without compensation, resulting in a loss of $4.37811 billion because they presume that those who download recordings of the hearings and case would otherwise purchase it on CD -- plus there is the fact that what would be downloaded is a raw and uncut version rather than the heavily cut-and-processed studio version. The court proceedings would be no different from typical concert bootlegs recorded right off the sound board; no artistic control and goofs might make it through. ;)

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  11. Re:That's nothing... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

    a defamation claim has no requirement regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the alleged statement or statements

    In American law, truth is an absolute defense to any defamation claim. Let me repeat that: absolute.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  12. compromise? use RealVideo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That would ensure that nobody watches it!

  13. Re:Staples and Noonan? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I haven't studied the Staples v. Noonan case, so I don't know if it is in error or not. I do know that if it held that truth is not an absolute defense to defamation, in any of the 50 states of these United States, it is in error.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  14. Looks pretty much like the TPB trial by Elisanre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Pirate Bay trial didnt get streamed but a bunch of dedicated live-bloggers can make a huge impact. Ridiculous arguments and outright lies get dissected, laughed at and commented to the old-style media. (who acctualy picked it up for once)