Appeals Court Says RIAA Hearing Can't Be Streamed 208
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has overturned a lower court order permitting webcast of an oral argument in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. As one commentator put it, the decision gives the RIAA permission to 'cower behind the same legal system they're using to pillory innocent people.' Ironically, the appeals court's own hearing had been webcast, via an mp3 file. The court admitted that this was not an appropriate case for a 'prerogative writ' of 'mandamus,' but claimed to have authority to issue a writ of 'advisory mandamus.' The opinion came as a bit of a surprise to me because the judges appeared, during the oral argument, to have a handle on the issues. The decision gave me no such impression. From where I sit, the decision was wrong in a number of respects, among them: (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything — our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions."
NYCL's analysis is just... wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
i'm sorry but as a fellow attorney (NY too!) i have to correct NYCLs analysis.
Advisory mandamus has its roots in the Supreme Court's reference to mandamus review of "basic, undecided question[s]." Schlagenhauf v. Holer, 379 U.S 104, 110 (1964); see Horn, 29 F.3d at 769; see also 16 Wright et al., supra, 3934. It is appropriately invoked when the action or inaction of the district court presents an issue of great importance and novelty, and one the resolution of which will likely aid other jurists, parties, and lawyers. See Horn, 29 F.3d at 769-70 (citing In re Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695 F.2d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 1982), and In re Bushkin Assocs., Inc., 864 F.2d 241, 247 (1st Cir. 1989)).
To summarize : They are allowed to issue advisory mandamus in cases such as these.
Re:duh.. (Score:3, Interesting)
In law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction. In modern usage, this public body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are types of writs, but there are many others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ [wikipedia.org]
They're clearly making stuff up as they go.
Re:Can they appeal? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that hinges on why the judges went from "understanding" to "not understanding". If it was because of behind-the-scenes pressure or incentives, then the answer would be no. Tenebaum couldn't win. There's not a whelk's chance in a supernova that anyone could out-bribe the RIAA, and the chances are extremely high they'd be caught, which would fry their chances of winning the "real" case.
If, on the other hand, it's because the judges never understood the legal issues in the first place, then yes. An appeal probably could win. Likewise if the judges deliberately sabotaged their ruling by making it illegal to follow. (One reason a judge might do that is if they are being pressured to render a judgement they disagree with but if they don't they'll be as screwed over as the defendant.)
If it's more that it's completely new territory and the judges are terrified of setting precedents (judges hate doing that), an appeal might go any which way.
Re:Can they appeal? (Score:3, Interesting)
My reasoning would be similar if i were to judge this case - publishing a stream would risk the trial turning into a circus.
Thanks for the info on advisory mandamus-type writs. A little googlery backs you up totally.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, however. I hear the phrase used from time to time, but I just can't seem to apply the metaphor to a civil court proceeding in my head. What, precisely, do you see as the negative implications of broadcast? I'm only able to see the advantage of greater transparency.
I also have trouble with the idea that this is an important enough issue to warrant an extraordinary writ. It doesn't seem fundamental to the integrity of the courts or even particularly novel (except, perhaps, in that the ruling was appealed at all).
It ain't just the First Amendment being trampled. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Public_trial [wikipedia.org]
I would love to know what "higher values" are served by closing this trial like this, other than avoiding the irony of an RIAA incident getting spread across the Internet like a frickin' virus.
It seems like the precedent described in the link above is very clear on when you do and do not have a right to a pubic trial. This example of closure posted on /. seems to overstep these limits, I think.
A defendant under US law has a right to a public trial...except for when he suddenly doesn't!
Re:No Justic in the legal system. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm an atheist personally, but I can imagine an afterlife that serves justice. It means every religion is wrong, but that's actually easier for me to deal with than the idea that any of them are right.
And now back to the topic. Although it would be nice to have the antics of these people up on display, I don't see if, or how, this decision directly impacts the issues of the case. Is it just the implication that it is being presided over by people not well-versed in the law?
Re:No Justic in the legal system. (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason why the RIAA is so strongly opposing the broadcast of the trial is, IMO, that the whole thing would instantly lose all its FUD quality. First, they just might lose, and the chances are not SO bad. Now imagine this getting out. The message: Don't get cowed down, their accusations are phony anyway, stand up in court and win.
Even if they win, a lot of lawyers are decent people (NYCL being an example) who would immediately identify their tactics, blog about it, comment the video/audio recordings and would instantly show that the emperor has no clothes, or rather, that they won just because the judge doesn't even understand what they're presiding over. Not good for the judge, but even worse for the whole judical system, which would be shown as unable to sensibly judge cases where copyright touches online distribution of content. And while this would probably be a good thing for us all, we just might get more judges that know their stuff, I doubt the judges would like to trade their cushy chairs for the hard ones associated with studying.
Re:Who to blame (Score:4, Interesting)
I blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodley appendages have a way of getting into everything.
I think I saw that on a hentai once.
Re:NYCL's analysis is just... wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
i'm sorry but as a fellow attorney (NY too!) i have to correct NYCLs analysis. Advisory mandamus has its roots in the Supreme Court's reference to mandamus review of "basic, undecided question[s]." Schlagenhauf v. Holer, 379 U.S 104, 110 (1964); see Horn, 29 F.3d at 769; see also 16 Wright et al., supra, 3934. It is appropriately invoked when the action or inaction of the district court presents an issue of great importance and novelty, and one the resolution of which will likely aid other jurists, parties, and lawyers. See Horn, 29 F.3d at 769-70 (citing In re Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695 F.2d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 1982), and In re Bushkin Assocs., Inc., 864 F.2d 241, 247 (1st Cir. 1989)). To summarize : They are allowed to issue advisory mandamus in cases such as these.
I'm now aware the 1st circuit has this line of cases. The question is whether a statute expressly authorizes it, or whether the US Supreme Court expressly authorizes it. If neither, then I stand by my position that it does not "exist". If so, then I will have learned something.
Re:Can they appeal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is a court required to resolve all issues raised by amici?
No but when it's a First Amendment, freedom of the press, public's right to know, issue, raised by most of the nation's major press organizations, and incorporated by reference in the defendant's brief, yes the Court must resolve the issue, not ignore it.