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."
*In this life there is no justice, only law. In the afterlife there is justice.*
Don't remember who said it, and I probably mangled up bad enough to make it unrecognizable.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Wait for the bootleg, it'll be on all the torrents in no time
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
If you are a Democrat, blame Bush. If you are a Republican, blame Obama. And if you are neither, blame Bill Gates. Personally, I blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodley appendages have a way of getting into everything.
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.
i'm sorry but as a fellow attorney (NY too!) i have to correct NYCLs analysis.
Advisory mandamus has its roots in the Supreme Court's reference to mandamus review of "basic, undecided question[s]." Schlagenhauf v. Holer, 379 U.S 104, 110 (1964); see Horn, 29 F.3d at 769; see also 16 Wright et al., supra, 3934. It is appropriately invoked when the action or inaction of the district court presents an issue of great importance and novelty, and one the resolution of which will likely aid other jurists, parties, and lawyers. See Horn, 29 F.3d at 769-70 (citing In re Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695 F.2d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 1982), and In re Bushkin Assocs., Inc., 864 F.2d 241, 247 (1st Cir. 1989)).
To summarize : They are allowed to issue advisory mandamus in cases such as these.
In the after life there's no justice either, unless the atheists are right.
If they are, you're just dead, just like the rest of everyone who died, and everyone is equally dead. That's maybe the lowest form of justice, making everyone the same, but it's at least some.
If they are not, you will be judged by an arbitrary set of rules that you (most likely) did not adhere unless you just happened to guess the right religion. In other words, you will be judged by laws that you did not know you are to uphold, probably laws you did not even know about and had no way of knowing. That's justice?
Even our legal system is superior to that scam.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I hate to go against the /. groupthink, but after listening to the MP3 of the hearing and reading the opinion myself, I have to agree with the appeals court's decision. Admittedly I can't speak to the advisory mandamus issue (I'll leave that to another poster), but a common-sense reading of rule 83.3 would suggest that the court's authority to allow broadcast is indeed limited; otherwise I would expect 83.3(c) to have been written something like "A party may petition the court to permit..." or just "It is permitted to...". Given that, and since Tenenbaum's side didn't argue any higher authority (except the right to a public trial, and as the judges stated, that's not being infringed any more than in any other trial), I have to agree that the decision is fair and reasonable.
Now, I certainly don't think this is a desirable outcome. But the purpose of the courts is to enforce the rules, and if they can't enforce their own rules, that doesn't give them much moral authority to enforce others, does it? What really ought to happen--as Judge Lipez says in his (her?) concurring opinion at the end of the PDF--is for the rule to be reexamined in light of Internet technology so this sort of problem doesn't reoccur.
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.
I would love to know what "higher values" are served by closing this trial like this
The trial isn't closed. There is still a record, the courtroom is still open to members of the public, and both the trial and the result are covered by the media.
A closed proceeding is one in which access is restricted, no record is made or the record is entirely sealed, and the media has no access to any information on the matter. None of that is true here.
You vastly overstate the situation and egregiously misunderstand both the mechanics and the impact of this decision. We don't generally broadcast trials and never have. There are many reasons why we shouldn't. It is not as though all trials conducted in the past have been closed because no one has ever broadcast the entirety of the trial. I mean, really now. The very fact that you are reading and commenting on this story is proof that a public trial is ongoing.
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
There's a word for using this sort of "deterrent". That word is "terrorism".