Slashdot Mirror
MP3 of RIAA Argument Available Online
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Download this: an MP3 file of the hearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, over whether a lower court proceeding in an RIAA case can be made available online, is now available online. The irony of course is palpable, not only because a court which freely makes its proceedings available across the internet is being asked by the RIAA, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, to prevent the district court from making similar proceedings available across the internet, but also because the end product is an MP3 file which can be freely downloaded, shared by email, shared through p2p file sharing, and even 'remixed.' The legal arguments focused on relatively narrow issues: the interpretation of a rule enacted in the District Court of Massachusetts, and the legal effect of a resolution by the First Circuit Judicial Council, rather than on broader First Amendment grounds."
Coming soon: RIAA sues 10-yo girl for sharing this particular MP3, demanding 300 millon dollars for lost profits.
It's called irony.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Is there something that prevents plain AAC, WAV, AIFF, OGG, FLAC or other common audio file formats to be freely downloaded, shared by email, shared through P2P file sharing and even 'remixed'?
Technically speaking, of course... I'm not talking about any legal/moral ramifications if the file has copyrighted/top secret/whatever contents.
I'm currently downloading it -- at a screamin' 0.7kb/sec. That's okay, the entertainment value will doubtless be well worth it.
Caveat Utilitor
Can someone please post the MP3 on YouTube?
I've never heard the sound of exploding lawyer craniums. I'm quite curious.
But there aren't any ships in sector 47. Are you sure? They haven't demonstrated the magnitude of their firepower! It's possible we could withstand it. Maybe it's nothing.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat!
If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Another torrent here; contains both original and edited files:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4836368/SONY_BMG_Music_Entertainment_v._Tenenbaum
This story provides Three times the the US RDA of Irony....
torrent 1
torrent 2
Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation.
All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
If you was to see the text they are debating see section 83.3 in Local Rules of the United States District for the District of Massachusetts.
Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation. All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.
Here's my prediction.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It looks pretty straightforward to me. Unless it's specifically mentioned in the rules (voice recordings by court reporters, etc.), you need a court order to record and broadcast a court proceeding.
In this case, the court heard arguments, provided a court order for the broadcast. These guys are arguing that the court had no right to make the order - and that right is given in the first sentence of the first subsection in rule 83.3 regarding Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting.
It's a waste of the courts time, taxpayer dollars, and the client's money - both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Think about it... the judge got paid, the court reporter got paid, the bailiffs got paid to be in the room. A transcript was made, people were tasked with scheduling this thing, putting the paperwork surrounding this hearing online, and so on and so forth. All for what amounts to a first year law student project to come up with an argument to push a court into restricting it's own power.
The RIAA attorneys should be fined for bringing this action.