Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

MP3 of RIAA Argument Available Online 73

Posted by timothy
from the topping-playlists-everywhere dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MP3 of RIAA Argument Available Online

Comments Filter:
  • itsatrap !!!! If the RIAA won't sue you for it they'll put you down on an 'enemies' list and sue you later.
    • by gmuslera (3436) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @06:11PM (#27525227) Homepage Journal
      Coming soon: RIAA sues 10-yo girl for sharing this particular MP3, demanding 300 millon dollars for lost profits.
      • by Kjella (173770)

        Nah, if they wanted to get more than 159,009$/song they'd have to show actual damages. The damages are made from the time of the printing press, where anyone making copies would make them in the hundreds or thousands. The truth is that any one uploader in a swarm is insignificant, they're just trying to come down hard on some. If enough people wnat it (50,000+ seeded the last epsiode of Heroes) then you're just not going to stop it.

      • The court is now a member of the RIAA (else, the RIAA couldn't collect in their name)?

        I knew it.

    • by vandelais (164490) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @06:25PM (#27525387)

      But there aren't any ships in sector 47. Are you sure? They haven't demonstrated the magnitude of their firepower! It's possible we could withstand it. Maybe it's nothing.

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @06:12PM (#27525255) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Chabo (880571)

      The MP3 is the format that's being served up by the government's website.

      The reason the format is mentioned in the article so prominently is the irony, as I stated above.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The MP3 is the format that's being served up by the government's website.
        The reason the format is mentioned in the article so prominently is the irony, as I stated above.

        Exactly, Chabo.

        This is a lawsuit meant to restrict the sharing of MP3's online.

        This is a petition, within that lawsuit, to try and prevent making an oral argument in that lawsuit available online.

        And the Court making the determination (a) makes its own oral arguments available online, and (b) the format in which it chooses to do so is MP3's, which are freely shareable, and even remixable. This oral argument could wind up as the soundtrack for some anti-RIAA movies on YouTube.

  • by clang_jangle (975789) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @06:15PM (#27525277) Journal
    I'm currently downloading it -- at a screamin' 0.7kb/sec. That's okay, the entertainment value will doubtless be well worth it.
  • Someone, please... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anachragnome (1008495) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @06:20PM (#27525327)

    Can someone please post the MP3 on YouTube?

    I've never heard the sound of exploding lawyer craniums. I'm quite curious.

  • STACK OVERFLOW
  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @06:45PM (#27525597)

    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.

  • I downloaded it earlier this morning and listened to it this afternoon.

    What's amazing to me is that they can spend over 45 minutes discussing what seems to me to be a matter this simple. But I guess this is exactly how lawyers make their money, says the prospective law student.

    PS, I think I created a torrent TPB [thepiratebay.org]
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Another torrent here; contains both original and edited files:

      http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4836368/SONY_BMG_Music_Entertainment_v._Tenenbaum

    • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @10:02PM (#27527097)

      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.

      • 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.

  • A movie of the MPAA's argument?
  • Ray, I hope you are having fun with this. The irony is just delicious.
  • This story provides Three times the the US RDA of Irony....
  • by mdmkolbe (944892) on Thursday April 09, 2009 @11:09PM (#27527553)

    If you was to see the text they are debating see section 83.3 in Local Rules of the United States District for the District of Massachusetts [uscourts.gov].

  • by Evets (629327) * on Friday April 10, 2009 @05:50AM (#27529283) Homepage Journal

    "Except as specifically provided in these rules or by
    order of the court, no person shall take any photograph, make any recording, or make any broadcast..."

    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.

    • "Except as specifically provided in these rules or by order of the court , no person shall take any photograph, make any recording, or make any broadcast..."

      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.

      You've got it exactly right. There are many things the RIAA lawyers should be fined for, and this petition is one of them.

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?

Working...