×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Case May Be Televised On Internet

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the court-documents-likening-the-riaa-to-vampires dept.

The Courts 221

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston case in which the defendant is represented by Prof. Charles Nesson and his CyberLaw class at Harvard Law School, the defendant has requested that audio-visual coverage of the court proceedings be made available to the public via the internet. Taking the RIAA at its word — that the reason for its litigation program is to 'educate the public' — the defendant's motion (PDF) queries why the RIAA would oppose public access: 'Net access to this litigation will allow an interested and growingly sophisticated public to understand the RIAA's education campaign. Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging. How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

221 comments

There is a better way... (4, Insightful)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26242943)

I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is.

But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get...

15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like.

Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did).

When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again.

Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.

--
Free and Fair, Friend or Foe? [slideshare.net]

Re:There is a better way... (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243219)

I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is. But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get... 15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like. Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did). When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again. Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.

If, for example, the tech community could get a chance to watch the testimony of the RIAA's "expert" and "investigator", I think a lot of good input would be communicated to the defendant's lawyer. Which would be anathema to the RIAA's campaign, since its primary fuel is ignorance.

Re:There is a better way... (2, Interesting)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243925)

I would fear the "well they did me wrong, so everything they say is false" mentality would swamp the defense lawyers in bogus information.

Re:There is a better way... (5, Funny)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243325)

I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers

.. then digitally mix them over various backing tracks chosen from a wide selection of RIAA-pimped artists :)

Re:There is a better way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243499)

I wonder how long it would take for RIAA's Lawyers - Never Gonna Give You Up to appear on Youtube...

Re:There is a better way... (5, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243335)

The problem reduces to the existence of the middle man. Back in the day before microphones existed every event of any size required a large band or orchestra. Once the microphone came along a small band could function so that anywhere from three to five musicians could entertain a large crowd. Music at home was normally provided by each family being able to play from sheet music. Next the radio was the stroke of death for music. Employment for professional musicians, once common, became rare. Worse yet all of the monkeys in the middle started wanting a piece of the action. The radio station, the record companies, the TV stations and so called agents began to feed deeply from the pockets of real musicians. Supporting these men in the middle harms music and musicians in a thousand different ways. Rebel actions to kill off these monkeys in the middle are not immoral at all.

Re:There is a better way... (2, Interesting)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243991)

To be fair a small subset of musicians became filthy rich with way of selling music.

Re:There is a better way... (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244005)

Yet people were much happier listening to Rubinstein play Chopin in the radio than tone-deaf Aunt Gladys. ;-)

And remember, with the advent of the radio there was many more people paying a much smaller 'fee', and yet the pie managed to get big enough even for the bloodsucking middle-monkeys.

Of course I support new, innovative and more profitable media distribution enterprises, which I think is what you meant by 'rebel actions to kill off monkeys in the middle', but you're playing theme and variations on the economic fallacy that 'machinery and technology destroys jobs'.

Re:There is a better way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243391)

The RIAA wants to publish this and then sue people for copying it.
Seriously it is the job of the court reporter to copy this verbatim and then sell official copyrighted transcripts.
Another suit in the making.

Re:There is a better way... (3, Insightful)

kentrel (526003) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243937)

They didn't sell singles 15 years ago??? And every single record store I've been in for the past 15 years has allowed me to listen to a CD in store before I buy it.

Re:There is a better way... (3, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244277)

Singles don't compare to single track downloads.

Singles were viable back when radio ruled, and each album was constructed to have a single hit, which was what was played on radio. Then people could get the one hit cheaper. Plus another song of the record company's choice as the B-side filler. But if they wanted any of the other songs on the album, they would have to buy the album.

If the download services switched to selling individual tracks for $6, and only select songs bundled with another song of the record company's choice, I think online sales would go the same way as single sales.

Re:There is a better way... (1)

equivocal (655448) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244037)

15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like.

Still a chicken/egg problem. How did you hear those songs you bought online before you bought them so that you knew you liked them enough to buy them?

Hold the line against the night (4, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | more than 5 years ago | (#26242989)

Sunlight is feared by all those who would use darkness and ignorance to enslave those who cannot break free. Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem. Ehud

Latin Quotes (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243379)

Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.

Possible definitions:

  • The one safety for the vanquished is to abandon hope of safety knowing there is no hope can give one the courage to fight and win.
    Yuni [yuni.com]
  • The one hope of the doomed is not to hope for safety.
    From Virgil's Aeneid, Bk II.354
    Quoteland forum [quoteland.com] / Mechreg [mechreg.org]

Re:Hold the line against the night (1)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243475)

I can't believe I am doing this, I am attempting to be a Latin grammar !z. But you know I must http://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]
Virgil's Aeneid, Book II.354:
It is victis, not victus I believe.
dative/nominative case.
The only safety for the conquered is to expect no safety.

Re:Hold the line against the night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243585)

I know Latin too! I can say "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet".

---------
... I know Kung-Fu, and other Chinese words!

Re:Hold the line against the night (1)

TheBeowulf (916247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243897)

Roughly translated:
"Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood."
:p

Re:Hold the line against the night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243935)

NERD!

Re:Hold the line against the night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26244117)

...a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless... in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Televise? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243015)

Televise. I keep seeing folks use that word in relation to the intertubes. I do not think it means what you think it means. Just because my monitor can show television programs does not make my computer a television. Perhaps the 'growingly sophisticated poster' was looking for 'broadcast'? /getoffmylawn

Re:Televise? (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243039)

Your computer is a television in that it allows you to view moving images transmitted over a distance:P

Yeah - I'm being pedantic and taking liberties with definitions.

Re:Televise? (3, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243295)

Only approved, purchased content on a secure, Trusted Platform (tm). Anything else would be communist, comrade.

the word still works (2, Insightful)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243059)

tele = at a distance
viso = to look at
so the word still works regardless of if you are using a TV set or a PC to view the video.

Re:Televise? (1)

theillien2 (1426175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243253)

I'd be willing to bet you think the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as it was written 200+ years ago despite the changing of times/techonology/temperament.

Re:Televise? (1)

bc90021 (43730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243797)

Thanks - I came here to post this as well. "Broadcast" would be much more appropriate.

Re:Televise? (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244015)

Televise. I keep seeing folks use that word in relation to the intertubes. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yeah well your phone probably doesn't have a dial on it either.

Fear of Slashdot grammar shone upon me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243023)

Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.

Wait...what?

Re:Fear of Slashdot grammar shone upon me (1)

Crizp (216129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243417)

One of the cases where a semicolon would be beneficial, no?

Re:Fear of Slashdot grammar shone upon me (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243557)

Possibly, although I can't see any way to merely insert a semi-colon and turn that into a grammatically and linguistically sound statement. It's really just missing some words to make that happen.

Re:Fear of Slashdot grammar shone upon me (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243491)

I don't recognize it, but I presume it is a quote from classic or geek literature.

Trade Secrets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243033)

They'll just claim that the litigation process is a "trade secret." Woo!

-G

Re:Trade Secrets (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243061)

Or that the defendant has a right to privacy. It doesn't actually have to make sense it just needs to superficially sound like it could. In fact it's more useful to the RIAA if it doesn't. It's a lot harder to argue against illogical arguments.

This argument may or may not make sense. However it will probably result in a South Park reference.

Re:Trade Secrets (4, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243113)

I doubt that argument works when it's the defendant that's looking to get the legal proceedings broadcast.

RIAA Is an intimidation organisation (0)

Techmeology (1426095) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243051)

Whether it will admit it or not, the RIAA is an organisation which sets out to curb illegal (though sometimes justified) file sharing. Since their is no technological means to accomplish this (it's almost a form of censorship - it restricts what people may communicate to each other - and people don't like being told what they can and cannot communicate), they resort to intimidation and scare tactics. Clearly, if the proceedings were to be made publicly viewable, some of the mystery would be lost. Or perhaps the RIAA are afraid they might loose, and don't want to do so in a very public way.

Re:RIAA Is an intimidation organisation (2, Insightful)

GeorgeS (11440) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243989)

Fear of the unknown. The more people know about what to expect in a trial V. RIAA the less they will fear it.
Lawyers know all about court and trials but, the average person knows very little about what to expect at a trial of this magnitude and they are probably scared to death of the possibility of being on the wrong side of one of these.
Perhaps people will not be so afraid to share music files after seeing this trial and that has to scare the hell out of RIAA. To think that one of these trials could actually lead to more music files being shared instead of less.

P.S. A big thanks to NYCL for all his hard work!

Re:RIAA Is an intimidation organisation (3, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244173)

Fear of the unknown. The more people know about what to expect in a trial V. RIAA the less they will fear it. Lawyers know all about court and trials but, the average person knows very little about what to expect at a trial of this magnitude and they are probably scared to death of the possibility of being on the wrong side of one of these. Perhaps people will not be so afraid to share music files after seeing this trial and that has to scare the hell out of RIAA. To think that one of these trials could actually lead to more music files being shared instead of less. P.S. A big thanks to NYCL for all his hard work!

Thanks, GeorgeS. Another of the RIAA's biggest fears is that a publicly available videotape of the proceedings will assist defendant's lawyers in preparing for future cases, and thus reduce the defendants' cost of litigation. The RIAA lawyers' primary goal is to drive up the cost to the defendants of defending themselves. If they could have it their way, they would want every case enshrouded in an all-inclusive confidentiality order.

Roaches! (5, Funny)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243093)

"How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.'"

Easy, they are like roaches. Ever notice how when you enter a room infested with roaches and turn on the light? The roaches immediately run for the shadows.

Re:Roaches! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243129)

Ever notice how when you enter a room infested with roaches and turn on the light?

Umh, no, not really...In fact, never. You really need to help your mom with the cleaning.

Re:Roaches! (5, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243225)

Where do these "magical" roaches that scatter from the light come from anyway? Every time I have gone into a house or apartment with roaches you could hit those bastards with a searchlight and all they would do is give you the finger. I don't know where the roaches that scatter supposedly live, but here in AR the only roaches you see are these big brown "fuck you" roaches that don't give a crap about freaking lights. Hell those bastards are so tough you can spray them with raid and they just wobble a couple of times and keep right on going.

Re:Roaches! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243437)

Yeah those are some baaaad roaches.

I blame the schools.

Kill Roaches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243497)

sprinkle them with borax = dead roaches

Re:Roaches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243587)

Ever notice how when you enter a room infested with roaches and turn on the light?

Dang! Is something missing from this sentence?

Re:Roaches! (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243691)

Except in this case, the roaches have destroyed the light switch for the US and destroy anyone who dares get within a radius of fixing it.
Does anyone honestly believe that the RIAA will get anything other than continued pats on the back from the government as they destroy anyone in their path for all eternity?

Available by Bit Torrent later. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243149)

Due to bandwidth issues, RIAA has decided that distributing the court case by Bit Torrent is the cost effective way of re-broadcasting the trial.

Available only at, ISOHUNT, MININOVA, MEGANOVA, Pirate Bay and welcometothescence.

Re:Available by Bit Torrent later. (2, Insightful)

TheGiB (1165079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243191)

I'd rather get it in .avi format.. so I can scroll back and forth.. then listen to a steam that cannot be replayed. (Yes, I know there are tools to do so, but it's normally not native.)

To whom knows... (5, Interesting)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243173)

NYCL, or other informed lawyers:

Why is there such a disdain and avoidance to audio/visual recording and dissemination about court cases? Being in this day and age, we could have multiple angles, multiple audio streams, and court transcript, along with evidence log attached to each "case document". Torrents could easily disseminate these large files, allowing for a complete log and documentation where our laws and case law come from.

Re:To whom knows... (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243237)

Have you seen how our legal system works these days? The whole thing would completely fall apart with any level of transparency, never mind audience feedback. It's easy enough to get someone jailed when they're being judged by a dozen people who couldn't think up an excuse to get out of jury duty... not so much when you've got ten thousand pointing out the flaws and inaccuracies in the prosecution's arguments.

Re:To whom knows... (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243241)

NYCL, or other informed lawyers: Why is there such a disdain and avoidance to audio/visual recording and dissemination about court cases?

There isn't. There is a growing trend towards it. Only the RIAA has "disdain" and "avoidance", since shining a light on things tends to encourage their mortal enemy... the Truth.

Re:To whom knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243737)

There isn't. There is a growing trend towards it. Only the RIAA has "disdain" and "avoidance", since shining a light on things tends to encourage their mortal enemy... the Truth.

Isn't that slander?

Re:To whom knows... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243827)

I thought one of the criteria for slander (or in this case, libel) is that the utterance not be true.

Re:To whom knows... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243939)

There isn't. There is a growing trend towards it. Only the RIAA has "disdain" and "avoidance", since shining a light on things tends to encourage their mortal enemy... the Truth.

Isn't that slander?

Your actually asking a lawyer that? Particularly on the subject of his own words. NYCL, if I recall right, has previously stated that such a case filed against him by the RIAA might be somewhat interesting, informative and in some fashion enjoyable as his side would push for full discovery. Imagine what might come to light in that fashion. There is a large number of judges that could testify on RIAA lawyers behaviour in courtrooms which would bring to light their failure to disclose information from prior decisions as well as directly opposing statements in regards to their "investigators". Those items are but the tip of the iceberg in regards to information they want judges and juries kept in the dark on.

Full web publication of that trial could prove most interesting to every judge and lawyer in the country, as well as many of the rest of us. Doubt the RIAA has that much nerve.

Re:To whom knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243987)

Ack! Left out the key and expected standard reply to such a question: "That can only be decided by a judge and/or jury."

Re:To whom knows... (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243283)

Because if the case becomes public spectacle, the jurors have the possibility of being swayed by the reactions of their friends/family/lovers/etc. The only way to keep this from happening would be to lock them all in their hotel rooms without communication for a few days, and pay them well so they don't flip out.

That's expensive.

I can see a reason for an avoidance. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243293)

Let's say there's a hefty case, and it garners a lot of media attention.

Being the "original" organizations they are, various multi-letter tv organizations broadcast the trial far and wide.

Well, guess what, there's a mistrial!

Now they have to convene a new jury, and with the national trial pretty much the entire pool is contaminated.

Definitely not a good thing.

Transparency is good, but it also brings up questions of fair due process if what I stated above occurs while abc or fox (depending on the political implications of the case) are spewing continuous implications of guilt.

Re:I can see a reason for an avoidance. (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243347)

You're assuming real-time transmission and after the fact jury contamination.

No, we record the trial in all its glory, and only after the verdict has been reached does the torrent start going. That may not solve the jury contamination, but if you care about the case, you're already "polluted".

My idea goes back to Leibniz's idea that we can apply a calculus to our language, and infer complex things such as trials.. we have large enough corpus of law. Why not start trying to infer logic and attempt to stay consistent with decisions already made?

Re:To whom knows... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243439)

Because a court case isn't supposed to be a popularity contest and it would bring lots of irrelevant posturing, arguments and explainations into the court room? One thing is being consistent about what you say in court and out of court, another is to turning it into another PR channel. The judge would have to rein them in endlessly to stick to the legal facts rather than trying to score points with the viewers.

Re:To whom knows... (3, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243513)

Because a court case isn't supposed to be a popularity contest and it would bring lots of irrelevant posturing, arguments and expla[...]nations into the court room? One thing is being consistent about what you say in court and out of court, another is to turning it into another PR channel. The judge would have to rein them in endlessly to stick to the legal facts rather than trying to score points with the viewers.

Actually making one's case to a jury is not much different than making one's case to the public. The jury is composed of members from all walks of life, who are basically selected because they have no special knowledge of the legal issues or of the facts, and have no relationship with the parties or their counsel. I.e., the community. Our judicial system was predicated upon the principle that the proceedings are open to the public. And with good reason. If one can expand the size of the public, it is all to the good.

Re:To whom knows... (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243699)

Actually making one's case to a jury is not much different than making one's case to the public.

Considering jury duty is composed of people who couldn't think of a good excuse to get out of jury duty, it's quite different indeed.

Re:To whom knows... (2, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243779)

Considering jury duty is composed of people who couldn't think of a good excuse to get out of jury duty, it's quite different indeed.

Actually, there are people who WANT to be on jury duty. I think its the lawyer's job to find them and strike them from the list.

What might be really disturbing are the ones who both want to be there and are inventive enough to avoid being stricken by the lawyers.

Re:To whom knows... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26244151)

I've known several people (myself included) who would like to serve jury duty. In my case, I was never actually called up, but I had a college friend who was called in four times, and three times he was culled from the jury pool during the interview stage.

The fourth time he was called up, we told him to pretend to be as dumb as possible. Answer their questions as vaguely as he could, act like he didn't know anything about the legal process, the news, etc. He was selected.

Re:To whom knows... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243919)

The jury is composed of members [...] who are basically selected because they have no special knowledge of the legal issues or of the facts

Only in the USA would somebody think that this is a good thing. Public participation in trials etc. is important, but I cannot for my life fathom how anyone would think that having people selected BECAUSE they don't know what they're doing (if you'll allow to overdramatise a bit there) would be a good idea.

I know what the idea is, of course: keeping The Government(tm) in check by having Ordinary People(tm) reach the actual verdict. But in reality, as you say, it all boils down to who's coming up with the more emotional argument.

Seriously. "Jury of your peers" makes about as much sense as requiring people to undergo "surgery by their peers" because you distrust doctors.

Re:To whom knows... (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244125)

The jury is composed of members [...] who are basically selected because they have no special knowledge of the legal issues or of the facts

Only in the USA would somebody think that this is a good thing. Public participation in trials etc. is important, but I cannot for my life fathom how anyone would think that having people selected BECAUSE they don't know what they're doing (if you'll allow to overdramatise a bit there) would be a good idea. I know what the idea is, of course: keeping The Government(tm) in check by having Ordinary People(tm) reach the actual verdict. But in reality, as you say, it all boils down to who's coming up with the more emotional argument. Seriously. "Jury of your peers" makes about as much sense as requiring people to undergo "surgery by their peers" because you distrust doctors.

Personally I think the right to trial by jury is the crowning jewel in our justice system.

Re:To whom knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243465)

Look up the case of Sam Sheppard. When he trail was reviewed by the supreme the trial was described as a having a carnival atmosphere.

Now the case was in the 50s, so people have gotten more savvy regarding media coverage and such things, but that is the historic context of why courts don't like media.

Re:To whom knows... (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243695)

I don't know, but the Ohio Supreme Court has all of its cases publicized on a community cable channel in Ohio. AFAIK it was their idea. It's a great channel to stop by if you want to get your wonk on. Law is such an interesting mix of common sense and logic.

Re:To whom knows... (1, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243831)

Law is such an interesting mix of common sense and logic.

Except in RIAA cases, where there is, instead, an interesting dearth of common sense and logic.

Wanking aside, (2, Interesting)

dysomniak (1435683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243199)

This is not how they do things in the real world. The defendants are going to have to convince the judge that there is some legal reason to broadcast the proceedings, and that they are not just trying to turn the courtroom into a soapbox. Good luck.

AwVesome fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243207)

salEs and so on,

Educational? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243209)

Although the RIAA may have claimed that the suits are "educational" in public statements, can those be used to influence court decisions? Or have they made that claim in previous lawsuits?

Royalties from broadcasters (4, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243255)

Surely education is the purpose of the Digital Deterrence Act of 1999, the constitutionality of which we are challenging. How can RIAA object? Yet they do, fear of sunlight shone upon them.

It's clear that the IRAA hasn't found a way to get royalties from the broadcasters for their court appearances.

Re:Royalties from broadcasters (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243615)

Get them to play a Metallica CD while they are broadcasting and we'll see the first recursive court case in history.

RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243309)

Television returns! The breakfast tails television. Television rebuilds RIAA into the counterpart. Television washes into the ocean.

Light of day... (3, Insightful)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243359)

... heaven forbid ! We can't have what goes on in court broadcast to the masses, they might realize how fragile the whole system is. How the courts are not there to establish truth, but to ascertain guilt (not innocence if you recall, we're all innocent until proven guilty) - two very different concepts. If people realized that their rights were trampled upon routinely by corporations, they would rebel, and the capitalist system - as it currently exists in the U.S. - would be in jeopardy. The power structure would collapse, and there would be chaos. It wouldn't be pretty for anyone, and we'd all end up living under Sharia law before you know it.

You have been warned.

Re:Light of day... (2, Insightful)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243415)

If people realized that their rights were trampled upon routinely by corporations, they would rebel, and the capitalist system - as it currently exists in the U.S. - would be in jeopardy.

Actually they don't care. They watch American Idol instead.

Re:Light of day... (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243549)

From what I've seen of trials (granted they're mostly murder/violent crime trials) on Court TV/Tru TV, I think you're being overly optimistic.

Trials are deathly boring. The questioning of witnesses, even the 'exciting' ones, is invariably tedious and full of off-topic rambling. The lawyers have little presence or charisma, and when they get all shouty it just looks idiotic.

Reality isn't much like an episode of Law & Order.

Re:Light of day... (3, Insightful)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243891)

Computer geeks laugh at computers in films, pirotechnicians laugh at explosions in films, doctors laugh at depictions of other doctors and astronauts laugh at scenes in space. The same is for lawyers and judges. Presumably for all other things. Hollywood is just one big lie, because reality isn't beautiful enough.

The revolution will NOT be televised. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243407)

"The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised."
                                        - Gil Scott-Heron.

Sorry, the RIAA folk have no souls (2, Informative)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243503)

Have you ever seen a reflection of Dracula in a mirror?

No, because he has no soul.

Have you, or will you ever see televised pictures of RIAA folks.

No, because they have no souls.

Read the fine print in your camcorder manual: "This device is not able to capture images of folks with no souls."

Re:Sorry, the RIAA folk have no souls (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243553)

Have you ever seen a reflection of Dracula in a mirror? No, because he has no soul. Have you, or will you ever see televised pictures of RIAA folks. No, because they have no souls. Read the fine print in your camcorder manual: "This device is not able to capture images of folks with no souls."

I think you folks are being insensitive here. Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel. How would you like it if you did for a living what they do for a living, and your friends, family, and neighbors -- even maybe your parents -- even maybe your children -- could see what you do? Or how would you like it if by offchance the tape was seen by a future prospective employer, who thought you had actually been practicing law?

Please have a little compassion.

Re:Sorry, the RIAA folk have no souls (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243693)

I see your point. It's a slippery slope. Pretty soon they'll be releasing the names of Nazi prison camp guards and Islamic terrorists.

I'm gonna be a STAR! (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243971)

"Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel."

Hi Mom! I'm on TV!!!

*back on topic*
I was under the impression that court proceedings were open to the public by default, and required extraordinary circumstances to be closed to the public.

Televising the court proceedings would only scale up the 'open to the public' concept IMHO, but I can also see some of the downside to this:
1. the tendency of our news media to spin, slant, edit, and sensationalize everything to try increasing their audience.
2. the ability to influence public opinion (due to #1 above), which can in turn influence the court's decision.
3. the whole thing turning into a media circus, as per the likes of Jerry Springer-type shows.

Without specific, strict guidelines for this, more harm than good is possible. Some of those guidelines necessary could in themselves be considered unconstitutional.
I don't know which side of the fence I'm on in this debate.
In an ideal world, transparency and openness is desired. But in this world, the chance of skewing trial results is just too high to be acceptable, IMHO.

Re:I'm gonna be a STAR! (3, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244105)

"Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel."

Hi Mom! I'm on TV!!!

I don't think they'd want their mothers to see what they are doing for a living.

*back on topic*

Spoilsport.

I was under the impression that court proceedings were open to the public by default, and required extraordinary circumstances to be closed to the public.

You were under the correct impression.

Televising the court proceedings would only scale up the 'open to the public' concept IMHO

Exactly.

but I can also see some of the downside to this: 1. the tendency of our news media to spin, slant, edit, and sensationalize everything to try increasing their audience.

They can do that much easier if the public can't see what's really going on.

2. the ability to influence public opinion (due to #1 above), which can in turn influence the court's decision.

As I noted in an earlier comment, the jury basically is -- or is supposed to be -- "the public", only (a) in microcosm, and (b) with all of the actual admissible evidence in hand.

3. the whole thing turning into a media circus, as per the likes of Jerry Springer-type shows.

If you read the court papers carefully, you'll see there's no way for that to happen. The camera is invisible and doesn't affect the trial.

Without specific, strict guidelines for this, more harm than good is possible.

Well there are very specific, strict guidelines for this.

Some of those guidelines necessary could in themselves be considered unconstitutional.

??? On the one hand you're saying it needs to be regulated. On the other hand you're saying that regulating it would be unconstitutional. That is kind of illogical, I hope you realize. In any event, it is a moot point, because it is very very strictly regulated, and the regulations which are being used have not been ruled to be unconstitutional.

I don't know which side of the fence I'm on in this debate.

Sounds to me like you do know which side of the fence you're on.

In an ideal world, transparency and openness is desired.

Indeed it is.

But in this world, the chance of skewing trial results is just too high to be acceptable, IMHO.

You haven't shown us a single reason why turning on an invisible video camera would in any way skew anything.

Re:I'm gonna be a STAR! (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244305)

Thanks for the reply.

*cringes*
I RTFA, but did not see anything about invisible cameras there.

  After I read your reply, I went back, to double check.
Okay, not familiar with Courtroom View Network, checked that link, and now it makes more sense.

I retract my doubts, and thanks for the info. (and persistence-it took a bit to sink through my thick skull)

Re:I'm gonna be a STAR! (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26244393)

Thanks, rts008. Yeah the courts are real conservative about this, and your instincts are like theirs -- that it has to be carefully regulated. For years the guidelines were in place only on an experimental basis, and used rarely. Eventually the courts came to the conclusion that it was safe if done right. And that the benefit to our society is huge.

This will cause more lawsuits... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243589)

If they play music as evidence during the case, would everyone watching the broadcast online get sued?

What's the point? (1)

bakedpatato (1254274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243651)

...its not like Americans will watch this instead of American Idol. But I and everyone else who knows what is happening(ie all of /.) will want to see this and memeize it to death(that would be 4chan).

God bless the RIAA and MPAA for fighting piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243659)

and now excuse me while I'll write comments at youtube again..

broadcast will only be to SUBSCRIBING public (3, Insightful)

Infoport (935541) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243713)

unfortunately, Courtroom View Network is a subscriber-based service (read John Shin's supporting declaration), so only the paying public who already knows about the case will be able to view it. Granted, many people never watch CourtTV either, but a case such as this with issues that interested much of the general public has the potential to gather LOTS of viewers, educating a large segment of the population (both on the RIAA's agenda, and on their actual tactics).

I fear that the hurdles put up by making people subscribe to CVN's service will influence many to not bother "tuning-in", especially in a culture where people are accustomed to "surfing", and previewing TV channels and websites before committing to the entire thing.

Re:broadcast will only be to SUBSCRIBING public (2, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26243757)

unfortunately, Courtroom View Network is a subscriber-based service (read John Shin's supporting declaration), so only the paying public who already knows about the case will be able to view it. Granted, many people never watch CourtTV either, but a case such as this with issues that interested much of the general public has the potential to gather LOTS of viewers, educating a large segment of the population (both on the RIAA's agenda, and on their actual tactics). I fear that the hurdles put up by making people subscribe to CVN's service will influence many to not bother "tuning-in", especially in a culture where people are accustomed to "surfing", and previewing TV channels and websites before committing to the entire thing.

I thank you for your input on that, Infoport. It would indeed be regrettable if the proceedings were not accessible from a practical standpoint. I'm going to bring your comment to the attention of the defendant's lawyers.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243799)

What, no "The Revolution Will Be Televised" cracks yet?

sex winth a ta3o (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243857)

OpenBSD leader Theo obse5sives and the some intelligent if you move a table happen. 'At least profits without = 36400 FreeBSD numbers continue Brain. It is the a full-time GNAA FreeBSD had long volume of NetBSD

RIAA, Why only in the US? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26243871)

RIAA only tries to hurt people in US, why they do'nt go to South America countries like Peru where the sale of ilegal music CD's and DVD's or movie DVD's is normal?, you can go to any mall and all the stores only offer "pirate" cd's or dvd's, When I went there couldn't see any legal music store. A peruvian guy told me that Bluckboster had to leave the country because nobody rented movies, when you can get the dvd for $0.50 cents, but those overseas don't count, only the american people, the ones that can pay easier and are closer, my policy? I forgot when was the last time I bougth a music Cd.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...