Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Says RIAA Hearing Can't Be Streamed
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has overturned a lower court order permitting webcast of an oral argument in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. As one commentator put it, the decision gives the RIAA permission to 'cower behind the same legal system they're using to pillory innocent people.' Ironically, the appeals court's own hearing had been webcast, via an mp3 file. The court admitted that this was not an appropriate case for a 'prerogative writ' of 'mandamus,' but claimed to have authority to issue a writ of 'advisory mandamus.' The opinion came as a bit of a surprise to me because the judges appeared, during the oral argument, to have a handle on the issues. The decision gave me no such impression. From where I sit, the decision was wrong in a number of respects, among them: (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything — our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions."
A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means "we command" in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
Obviously. I mean, come on, it's a prerogative writs and stuff.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Correct. More to the point for laypeople, the prohibition on "advisory" opinions (rooted in the fact that American jurisprudence requires a "real case or controversy") extends only to the practice of providing opinions on issues not ripe for litigation or where there are no parties before the court asserting an injury/requesting relief.
This is an actual case, being litigated in a real court. It does not meet the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, which makes the question one that is likely to escape review. Issuing an "advisory" component for the purpose of assisting practitioners and courts likely to face the same question in the near future doesn't implicate the problem the advisory opinions rule was meant to prevent. Cf. Canada, whose Supreme Court can offer their advice before the fact when questioned by Parliament; US courts cannot respond in this same way to Congress.
In short, the rule prevents the courts from expending resources on hypotheticals--not on elaborating its own procedures and authority in an issue within an actual case that might otherwise evade direct review.
It's a question of courtroom discretion, not one couched in the facts of a specific set of copyright infringement actions. The irreparable bias of the summary writer is highly problematic here; no professional judge or attorney would approach this question with such hamfisted incredulity. The legal questions here are administrative, not based on the parties. Anti-RIAA sentiment has no place contaminating the entire subject here.
The local court rule as written does not grant such broad authority to the judge; the appellate court was correct. Courtroom proceedings are not normally permitted to be broadcast while they are occurring, subject to limited exceptions in local rules. The risks of prejudicial effect are entirely too high. No applicable exception was referenced by the trial court, and therefore the general ban on broadcasting must be upheld.
yes, the district court must follow it. NYCLs analysis was essentially, trolling. I realize NYCL is popular here, but that does not make his reasoning correct.
NYCL stated : (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything -- our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions.
(a) is plainly incorrect because the opinion was from a higher court -- they do not need to follow the wording of a lower court - they can -- and do -- explicitly contradict it. hence the term "appeal" or "appeal to a higher power who can disagree with you if it so desires".
(b) is incorrect because there is no First Amendment implication to publish. The court is still allowing you to speak in front of it, you do not have any republication rights in the 1st amendment. its free speech not free license to republish for a mass audience. My reasoning would be similar if i were to judge this case - publishing a stream would risk the trial turning into a circus. You may disagree with this (as NYCL did) but it does not make the reasoning incorrect or invalid.
(c) is incorrect for all the reasons i have layed down in my later post. basically SCOTUS allows advisory mandamus rulings.
by making a ruling that NYCL says isn't legally recognized and is explicitly only "advice", can the judge merely treat it like any "friend of the court" filing rather than a court ruling?
I did NOT say that the District Judge can treat it like a "friend of the court"; she is bound by it, even if it is wrong. I did not say the 1st Circuit's ruling "isn't legally recognized". I said I believe it is erroneous. It has the force of law unless and until it is overruled or reversed.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
yes, the district court must follow it. NYCLs analysis was essentially, trolling. I realize NYCL is popular here, but that does not make his reasoning correct. NYCL stated : (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything -- our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions. (a) is plainly incorrect because the opinion was from a higher court -- they do not need to follow the wording of a lower court - they can -- and do -- explicitly contradict it. hence the term "appeal" or "appeal to a higher power who can disagree with you if it so desires". (b) is incorrect because there is no First Amendment implication to publish. The court is still allowing you to speak in front of it, you do not have any republication rights in the 1st amendment. its free speech not free license to republish for a mass audience. My reasoning would be similar if i were to judge this case - publishing a stream would risk the trial turning into a circus. You may disagree with this (as NYCL did) but it does not make the reasoning incorrect or invalid. (c) is incorrect for all the reasons i have layed down in my later post. basically SCOTUS allows advisory mandamus rulings.
1. The 1st Circuit exists under the law, and must follow the law.
2. The defendant raised his constitutional right to a public trial, and the First Amendment was raised by the amici; the Court had a responsibility to resolve those issues, not ignore them and say that they did not exist.
3. The US Supreme Court has not authorized "advisory mandamus". The case you cited is completely distinguishable. It dealt with the power of a court to decide an issue which had become mooted. It did not create or authorize a general "advisory mandamus" doctrine which freed the courts from the "cases or controversies" limitation on their powers, or which redefined the ancient writ of "mandamus", which has existed for around 600 years and has a well understood meaning.
The fact that I simplify things here for my non-lawyer friends does not make it "trolling".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful