Televised RIAA Hearing Adjourned, Briefs Scheduled 72
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."
Re:New arguments? (Score:5, Informative)
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."
That sounds bad. Anyone know what this actually means for the case?
You're not supposed to go to an appeals court on arguments you never made in the lower court. It's a waste of their time, and it's not fair to the lower court judge. What it means for the RIAA's petition is that it's unfounded.
Re:mafia enforcers (Score:5, Informative)
And if the law doesn't fit what they want to do, they bring out their arsenal of paid congresscritters to change it to their liking. Usually as some footnote to a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with what they want.
Re:arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals cou (Score:5, Informative)
"arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court ... had never been raised in the lower court."
If this is a writ of prohibition how is it relevant?
That's easy. Because the 1st Circuit doesn't want to waste its time reviewing something that might not have had to be reviewed. The Judge's second order has already obviated 90% of the argument the RIAA's lawyers made in their petition.
Re:New arguments? (Score:3, Informative)
The general rule is that arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived. That means that the appellate court should summarily dismiss those arguments.
--AC
Re:Massachusetts rules? (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, the Massachusetts rules say that courtroom proceedings may be broadcast if they fall into certain categories "or by order of the court", which is generally taken to mean that the court can allow other proceedings to be broadcast at it's discretion. The RIAA wants to read that rule as "and by order of the court", limiting the court to allowing broadcasting only of the categories specified.
Also, when the RIAA appeals to the rules of the Judicial Conference, it glosses over the fact that the Judicial Conference has no authority to dictate rules to the courts under it and that no court under it has actually adopted it's proposed prohibition on broadcasting proceedings.
Re:mafia enforcers (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting post, but I must admit "guarantee" means little to me without context.
Would you care to elaborate a bit?
On a related note, a while back I was talking to some people who apparently make movies for a living (accidental, just met these people in a pub) and it was interesting. They do need education on the effects of copying (and the various types of it, because "piracy" is to me the wholesale manufacturing not the "I'll make a copy for a friend" type) but what I found fascinating is that the whole region limiting is apparently because of a small minority. Most of these guys intensely disliked it for the same reasons I dislike it too: it stops legitimate customers buy anywhere. People that travel have money and are bored, so stopping exactly that group from buying is seen as incredibly stupid but it appears there are some reasons they're stuck with this idea..