Associated Press Wants RIAA Case Webcast 103
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]."
Re:The RIAA and their studios are cowards (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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: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.
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.
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.
Re:Brief is online (Score:3, Informative)
[...] mass media could care less.
That's good, right? That they don't care less, even though they could?
Re:Reality is closing in around the RIAA... (Score:1, Informative)
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.