Slashdot Log In
Associated Press Wants RIAA Case Webcast
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat Jan 31, 2009 08:19 AM
from the afraid-of-scrutiny dept.
from the afraid-of-scrutiny dept.
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]."
Related Stories
[+]
Televised RIAA Hearing Adjourned, Briefs Scheduled 72 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After the lower court adjourned the hearing scheduled to be televised in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, in order to give the appeals court time to determine the RIAA's petition for a writ of 'mandamus or prohibition', the appeals court set a briefing schedule. Apparently expecting amicus curiae briefs to be submitted, the appellate court set January 29th as a deadline for filing of amicus briefs. One commentator opines that 'the last thing Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG RIAA attack lawyers want is for people to see them live and in full, glorious color', while another noted Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA Argument About Streaming To Be Streamed 92 comments
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."
[+]
FSF Files Amicus Brief In RIAA Case 73 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Free Software Foundation has requested permission to file
an amicus curiae brief in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, defending the defendant's Due Process defense to the RIAA's claim for statutory damages. In the brief [PDF], FSF cites some of the leading authorities for the defense, including the 2003 decision of the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Parker v. Time Warner, which held that excessive statutory damages are subject to the same due process test applicable to punitive damage awards by juries. Additionally, the brief cites three district court decisions, including UMG v. Lindor, and two law review articles — all of which deal specifically with Copyright Act statutory damages applicable to infringement of an MP3 file — to like effect."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Haha (Score:5, Funny)
Can't wait for it to appear on thepiratebay
Re:Haha (Score:5, Funny)
"the ironing is delicious."
Parent
Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:5, Interesting)
As soon as I get a copy of the actual brief [CC] 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."
Thus marking the first time Slashdot has posted a breaking news story. ;)
The RIAA's actions continue to provide amusement for me. But it's all increasingly irrelevant in my life. Just like when 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.
The RIAA has to face the court of public opinion eventually. I think the Amazon.com MP3 store and iTunes show what remarkable success DRM-free music can have online. Unfortunately for the RIAA, so do Jamendo and Magnatunes....
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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...
Parent
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, in particular because the warnings are usually unskippable and are often displayed immediately after you choose the "play movie" menu option.
I mean, is there anyone in the US who has never seen one of those warnings? 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?
Parent
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Parent
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Tip for those stuck with plain-old DVD players: insert disc, wait until it starts playing, hit stop, then hit menu. This often skips the usually-unskippable crap before the menu.
Parent
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:4, Informative)
1) anydvd
2) dvdclone
both from slysoft (sort of).
take friggin control back! stop letting THEM control the buttons on your goddamned remote control.
I rip all my dvd for my HTPC and I never have to sit thru strong-arm intimidation 'commercials' and PUO (the tech term for the 'you cannot skip this part') shit.
anyone who watches a regular dvd and DOES sit thru that crap is a chump, sorry to say. we've had the ability to break dvd anti-consumerisms for years. each time you let that crap seep thru you are letting them win.
filter the crap. rip to disk, select the chapters YOU want and watch what YOU want.
then seal up the disc, store it (heh, or return it) and that's that. no more 'warnings'. they are for children, and stupid children at that.
get a copy of anydvd. free yourself from the industry thugs and start watching movies again instead of threats.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that was on of the big selling points of Blu Ray (or was it HD DVD? sorry, I totally forget) that the movie started immediately.
How has that panned out ? 10 minutes searching I can't find anything about it any more, but I may just be missing the exact terms.
Re: (Score:2)
i think what's worse is that every DVD title displays different menu behaviors. some DVDs will play automatically after the disc is inserted; some will take you to a menu. some will allow you to hit the "play" button on your remote to play; others make you actually select "play" form the menu and hit the "enter"/"ok"/"select" button on your DVD player remote. some DVDs make you watch copyright warnings multiple times; some play a bunch of previews/ads--which on some titles you can skip, but not on others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:4, Insightful)
Jeeves & Wooster has a 30 second "You wouldn't steal..." ad at the beginning
Which is pretty funny considering that Jeeves & Wooster starts off with Wooster in court for having stolen a policeman's helmet.
Parent
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is VLC Player illegal?
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:5, Informative)
Since when is VLC Player illegal?
In the US, since October 28, 1998 [aallnet.org].
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are legal restrictions on what I can do with it, basically I can't make and sell copies, but unless I sign a licence agreement before I pay and accept delivery, then there is no licence. You don't get to add conditions after the sale.
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:4, Interesting)
Geexbox is a portable version. Stick in it a PC, boot it, remove the ejected CD and insert the movie. It writes nothing to the hard drive leaving no recored of the DMCA violation.
http://www.geexbox.org/en/index.html [geexbox.org]
As a bonus, it in an introduction to the many versions of Linux to non-geek types. Print up a few disks and pass them out at work.
Parent
Highlights for Children (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to compare how the various Media Entities spin (or even cover?) this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. What will happen when organizations like the New York Times or the Associated Press hear about what these guys are trying to do?
The RIAA and their studios are cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps so, but still... It's nice to have mainstream media to wake up. Definitely should make the RIAA's campaigns (both in lobbying and in changing public opinion) harder...
Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I would say you've got their number.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering the popularity of this case and the argument the judge has made, couldn't pretty much any other defense lawyer in any other case make the same request? RIAA wants to educate the public, so why not?
The RIAA either accepts it and goes through with the case, or they drop the case altogether. It's win-win. It's like we have the plans to the Death Star!
Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards (Score:5, Informative)
Considering the popularity of this case and the argument the judge has made, couldn't pretty much any other defense lawyer in any other case make the same request? RIAA wants to educate the public, so why not? The RIAA either accepts it and goes through with the case, or they drop the case altogether. It's win-win. It's like we have the plans to the Death Star!
Judge Gertner's decision is a significant precedent that will be helpful to all lawyers representing RIAA defendants who want to open the proceedings to public scrutiny. The briefs that have been submitted by the amici curiae will also be great ammunition. And if the 1st Circuit blasts the RIAA, then that will be a super precedent.
Parent
Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards (Score:4, Informative)
Question for Mr. Beckerman: I'm pretty sure precedents are related to district/jurisdiction, so a precedent set in the 1st circuit wouldn't apply to any of the other circuits. If this goes through, will it only stand in that particular circuit or could it be used (and cited as precedent) in any court nationwide?
It's a binding precedent only in the First Circuit. However, depending on what it says, it could be persuasive authority everywhere else.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK the RIAA is facing a counterclaim and thus can't drop it. They're being counterattacked. Put these facts together and it becomes obvious that "It's a trap!"
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, they CAN'T drop the case. This is a hearing for the Opposition's counter-suit. The only thing they can do here is move to dismiss (which is what they're doing here...) and if the Judge doesn't buy the motion's premises, she won't do anything of the sort.
This is very, very far removed from what they want happening. Especially if it's televised.
Re: (Score:2)
867-5309
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I received one of those extortionate letters ("Pay up or else"). I sent an email to the RIAA CEO to thank him for sending fuel for the fireplace, and please send more to help me keep warm this winter. ;-)
Re:The RIAA CEO (Score:2)
Try this.
If you graft his letter into some other equally cleverly repurposed music they provide from somewhere, does that make him an Artist? Then can you wiggle their rules such they have to "treat him like they treat an artist on their roster"?
You would send him back his rightfully earned $21.99 plus $7.88 Handling fee and thank him for his work! Remember to buy your second copy for the car.
Kurt Godel FTW!
(Whose work showed that data is data, and the context is selectible.)
DMCA take-down notice (Score:3, Funny)
Exhibits A, B, C, and G will be grounds for a DMCA takedown notice. The youtube version will have the sound muted so as not to leak any copyrighted material without just compensation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, don't worry. We'll just upload it to various P2P networks and torrents mistitled. Disguised as porn, more likely than not.
Re: (Score:3)
> Oh, don't worry. We'll just upload it to various P2P networks and torrents mistitled. Disguised as porn, more likely than not.
"Hot, barely legal action! Watch RIAA lawyers get screwed!"
Hmm ...
Yeah, that could work...
New case: Universal v. Universal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aren't parent companies like families? Because Thanksgiving always goes off without a hitch back home...
Re: (Score:2)
I find it amusing in the same way train wrecks are amusing... until you find out it was a passenger rail.
Re: (Score:2)
At which point someone uploads pics to /b/, someone else rule34s them, and someone makes a joke in poor taste on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The legal implications sound fantastic. Pretzel anyone?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony, for example, has been noted to be rather schizophrenic, also; its content producing divisions dreams of ever more secure/draconian DRM, while its consumer electronics division would prefer no DRM whatsoever (or at least, no new DRM systems which only make consumer devices more costly and complicated to produce and less user-friendly).
I bet Apple makes more money selling iPods than Sony makes selling music. And if you go back a few years in time, the music player market was there for Sony to take, or at least to have a good go at trying to take it. I have no doubt Sony could have created a really good player that would have given the iPod a run for its money, and because of their music division they threw it away.
Brief is online (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Brief is online (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[...] mass media could care less.
That's good, right? That they don't care less, even though they could?
I don't understand (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, we may be seeing the RIAA meet their perfect storm:
- They can't quietly drop the case.
- They've always tried to publicize their cause, but now they fight publicity.
- The more they fight publicity, the more they get.
- They worry video will be remixed, conveniently ignoring how it also creates an accessible authoritative record.
It seems the RIAA has no argument here without contradicting themselves.
This just reeks of awesome.
Parent
Secrecy shouldn't be possible (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it possible that the RIAA can even "ask" to not have the case tried in full view of the public? I find it extraordinary that we allow any of our national processes not related to sensitive national matters, or personal matters (rape trials etc.) to occur behind closed doors. How is it that these people so easily forget who they work for?
Any trial dealing with business (and most importantly businesses that can lobby governments and have new laws enacted) should be 100% transparent and broadcast so that the public can stay informed. The judicial system, along with every other section of government, belongs to the people and it is ultimately the people who have to live with the decisions made. Not to mention pay for them.
--
PhreezeVi
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the typical Wight [wikipedia.org] cannot be seen on film.
That's why they will record them digitally.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad logic, is bad. The reason a typical wight cannot be recorded on film, is the same as the reason it cannot be recorded digitally.
Ah. Thank you for the explanation.
I'd thought it works just like with the MP3s of songs with backmasked subliminal messages. I mean, think of it logically: if you have a backmasked subliminal message, it is not something readily apparent â" just the kind of stuff compression algorithms remove.
Re:AC (Score:5, Funny)
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.)
Parent