MP3 of RIAA Argument Available Online 73
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Download this: an MP3 file of the hearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, over whether a lower court proceeding in an RIAA case can be made available online, is now available online. The irony of course is palpable, not only because a court which freely makes its proceedings available across the internet is being asked by the RIAA, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, to prevent the district court from making similar proceedings available across the internet, but also because the end product is an MP3 file which can be freely downloaded, shared by email, shared through p2p file sharing, and even 'remixed.' The legal arguments focused on relatively narrow issues: the interpretation of a rule enacted in the District Court of Massachusetts, and the legal effect of a resolution by the First Circuit Judicial Council, rather than on broader First Amendment grounds."
Re:Sensationalism! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called irony.
Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (Score:4, Insightful)
P2P FTW.
Paging all nerdy internet DJs (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat!
If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P.
Re:Someone, please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here you go:
Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RHBDwlH8c [youtube.com]
Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHAF39JxNs [youtube.com]
Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06BJu9GVU-w [youtube.com]
Part 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JcOi6htmHM [youtube.com]
Part 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9idglz0ANA [youtube.com]
Part 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWOAR6ZU0JA [youtube.com]
9 min 10 sec each, last is 1 min 10 sec
What a weak waste of time (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks pretty straightforward to me. Unless it's specifically mentioned in the rules (voice recordings by court reporters, etc.), you need a court order to record and broadcast a court proceeding.
In this case, the court heard arguments, provided a court order for the broadcast. These guys are arguing that the court had no right to make the order - and that right is given in the first sentence of the first subsection in rule 83.3 regarding Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting.
It's a waste of the courts time, taxpayer dollars, and the client's money - both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Think about it... the judge got paid, the court reporter got paid, the bailiffs got paid to be in the room. A transcript was made, people were tasked with scheduling this thing, putting the paperwork surrounding this hearing online, and so on and so forth. All for what amounts to a first year law student project to come up with an argument to push a court into restricting it's own power.
The RIAA attorneys should be fined for bringing this action.