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."
In MP3 format, so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there something that prevents plain AAC, WAV, AIFF, OGG, FLAC or other common audio file formats to be freely downloaded, shared by email, shared through P2P file sharing and even 'remixed'?
Technically speaking, of course... I'm not talking about any legal/moral ramifications if the file has copyrighted/top secret/whatever contents.
Someone, please... (Score:5, Interesting)
Can someone please post the MP3 on YouTube?
I've never heard the sound of exploding lawyer craniums. I'm quite curious.
Re:The Irony is Better Than the Content (Score:4, Interesting)
Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation.
All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.
Re:The Irony is Better Than the Content (Score:4, Interesting)
Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation. All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.
Here [blogspot.com]'s my prediction.