×

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 Hearing Next Week Will Be Televised

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the light-of-day dept.

The Courts 291

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "One commentator labels it 'another fly in the RIAA's ointment.' In SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the Boston, Massachusetts, RIAA case in which the defendant is represented by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson and a group of his students, the Judge has ruled that the hearing scheduled for January 22nd will be televised over the Internet. The hearing will relate to Mr. Tenenbaum's counterclaims against the record companies and against the RIAA. In her 11-page opinion (PDF), District Judge Nancy Gertner labeled as 'curious' the record companies' opposition to televising the proceedings, since their professed reason for bringing the cases is deterrence, 'a strategy [which] effectively relies on the publicity arising from this litigation'."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

291 comments

Sweet Jesus! (4, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483143)

This outta be more entertaining then all seasons of Heroes combined!

Re:Sweet Jesus! (1, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483197)

Whoops...allow me to grammar-nazi myself: then = than.

Re:Sweet Jesus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483415)

Not unlike when I stubbed my toe this morning.

Re:Sweet Jesus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483437)

This outta be more entertaining then all seasons of Heroes combined!

But then again, so would watching Bryant Gumbel do standup comedy.

Terminology (4, Insightful)

corywingerter (917335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483147)

televised over the internet??

Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.

Re:Terminology (5, Informative)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483257)

Televised means remote vision: that can happen over the internet as well as a TV. Actually the article uses televised in a general sense and uses the term narrowcast when going into details. which works for me.

Re:Terminology (5, Informative)

Krinsath (1048838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483271)

Television (from Merriam-Webster) - an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound (emphasis mine)

televised over the internet - means that the television is going out over the Internet to computer endpoints. That the television SET is often abbreviated as television is simply laziness and a bastardization of the language, not that the usage in the summary is incorrect.

Re:Terminology (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483293)

tl;dr

Re:Terminology (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483429)

tl;dr? it was barely a couple of paragraphs, you must have a short attenti

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26484045)

Television (from Merriam-Webster) - an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound (emphasis mine)

That's nice and all, but the semantics of definitions aren't so clear. This definition doesn't apply to ANY electronic system of transmitting transient images, but to a PARTICULAR electronic system of transmitting images.

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483359)

What if it's streamed all over your face?

Just sayin..

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483423)

Not televised, not streamed. Tubed.

Re:Terminology (-1, Troll)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483517)

Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet.

Either way, RIAA is fighting theft of their members' intellectual property.

Yet by seeing the amount of efforts the great legal minds — from NewYorkCountryLawyer to Ivy League law professors — one would think, RIAA is trying to abolish the Constitution or something...

Re:Terminology (5, Insightful)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483625)

Not theft, unauthorized copying. There's a difference; the cost to the owner is by decreased scarcity or potentially lost revenue, not by the loss of possession of an item with value. You can't steal thoughts and ideas, you can only copy them.

Re:Terminology (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483627)

Good thing you are here to set those great legal minds straight as to the error of their ways. :-)
I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised? People here assume there is something sinister about it, and the fear of the light does remind one of certain nasties that live under rocks, but maybe they have a good reason. I'd be curious to hear SERIOUS ideas as to why they might be wanting to hide it. I actually can't come up with one, even assuming sinister motives. Aren't they trying to intimidate people? I assume they think they might lose? I don't get it.

Re:Terminology (1, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483765)

Wow, an industry shill this early in the morning. And one who STILL doesn't understand the meaning of THEFT. Somebody mod this crap as trolling.

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483885)

What in the fuck does your post have to do with the post you're replying to? For gods' sake, you can't even claim to have thought to be replying to the article like so many people do, because you fuckin' quoted him!

Re:Terminology (4, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483949)

Well first, even if you take the RIAA's side fully, a reasonable person would admit that it's copyright infringement, and not "theft". You can argue that copyright infringement is as bad as theft, but it's not theft.

Second, the complaint isn't that they're trying to fight copyright infringement, but rather their methods of fighting copyright infringement. Surely methods and means can matter. I can fight against injustice using methods that are themselves unjust.

Can we agree to that much, at least? At least as a starting point to discuss exactly how immoral copyright infringement is, and whether the RIAA's methods are just or unjust?

Re:Terminology (1)

Zader (814402) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484033)

...one would think, RIAA is trying to abolish the Constitution or something...

Nah, Obama is going to get rid of that pesky Constitution thing for them.

RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (5, Insightful)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483155)

One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court? Can you imagine if I stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11? Do you think the court would even hear a case where they wanted a million for my crime?

This is the new business model of the recording industry, which is exactly like the old model. Overcharge your customers and when that doesn't work, overcharge and extort from your customers to make up for shortfalls you generated because you have a crappy product.

There's only so much "drug money", oops CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops recording artists...

(Yes I'm bitter this morning; still need my meth, oops coffee.)

=Smidge=

One problem... (3, Interesting)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483451)

The problem is, if the RIAA wins by some convoluted twist of the law (of which they've gotten quite good at twisting by this point), no amount of losses will be able to wipe the smug look from their faces after winning the case on live TV. At which point, the industry is doomed.

Never think that the RIAA is doomed. They always come back.

Re:One problem... (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483595)

If the RIAA wins, our culture will stagnate and be forever held hostage by profiteering bribers.

The new culture will come from "free-er" China, etc where no RIAA equivalent exists, yet.

Re:One problem... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483731)

Yes the RIAA is the cockroach of professional associations. Or perhaps that's giving them too much cred.

An Open Letter (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484343)

Dear sbeckstead,

I represent the ACAL (American Cockroach Advocacy League). Please take this as notice that you have been served with a lawsuit for ONE BILLION DOLLARS (please visualize me holding my pinky to my mouth), for defamation of character.

The ACAL resents any comparison of the RIAA to cockroaches, as it is insulting to cockroaches. See you in court.

Sincerely,

H.M. Dewey, for
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, Attys at Law.

Re:One problem... (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483875)

If they win, they will lose. If they lose, they will lose.

Most people just think that big media is a bunch of greedy assholes. Putting them out in the public serves to prove that big media is a bunch of greedy assholes.

And as to what I mean by "if they win, they will lose" I mean to say that seeing the RIAA win in a big case like that, people will know to steer clear of anything associated with the RIAA. An effective majority tapes, records or shares music once in a while. The practice is quite literally a part of our daily lives. If the public sees someone lose their lives through a lawsuit, you can bet it will not cause people to rush out and legitimize their collection by buying more stuff. No, they will look to alternatives. They lose.

And if they lose, they will lose. The results may not be as dramatic as if they were to win, but at least it gives further data for study and reference when building a defence for the next case they bring.

Re:One problem... (1)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484021)

And as to what I mean by "if they win, they will lose" I mean to say that seeing the RIAA win in a big case like that, people will know to steer clear of anything associated with the RIAA. An effective majority tapes, records or shares music once in a while. The practice is quite literally a part of our daily lives. If the public sees someone lose their lives through a lawsuit, you can bet it will not cause people to rush out and legitimize their collection by buying more stuff. No, they will look to alternatives. They lose.

I wish I could believe that, but unfortunately I have absolutely no hope or belief that the top-40 will ever stop selling and being the top-40 to the vast, vast majority of people.

Dear god, please let me be proven wrong.

Re:One problem... (1)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484303)

I have proof that you are correct. I watched the first few minutes of American Idol earlier this week just to see what the fuss was all about. I was amazed to see so much poor talent (very superior to my own, but still poor) on display. Yet this show is one of the highest rated in U. S. television.

If this is where the future recording artists are going to cum from I am happy I grew up in the sixties and seventies when we had real music.

P. S. Please ask, no beg, them to stop re-making the music of my youth! It HURTS everytime I have to hear that shit! Maybe it sounds good coming through those tiny iPod ear-buds, but I am used to hearing real music from real speakers. Speakers that cost more than the iPod these kids are listening to.

When did we move from High-Fidelity (HiFi) to iPod?

Re:One problem... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26484079)

But there are a 2 problems with this:

1) Nowhere near the amount of people affected by it will see this, because it isn't on a TV.
2) Most people don't care.
Sadly, people are heartless bastards and will just go "damn, that sucks, evil bastards", then forget all about it within a month, unless reminded by it.

If it was shown live on TV, then it might matter, but sadly it probably won't be...
Maybe it should be on TV because then most of the ignorant world will actually see the bullshit that companies like this get up to - and get away with - each and every year.

Really worried about "therevolution" (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484039)

I think they are worried that a grass-roots campaign against using unreasonable statutory damages against the (non-commercial) "everyman" will be more effective than all the money they've invested / are investing in Congressional lobbying.

Of course, they are lucky that the defendent isn't a famous retired football player!

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483549)

One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court? Can you imagine if I stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11? Do you think the court would even hear a case where they wanted a million for my crime?

"Your Honor, the defendant could have cloned cattle by extracting DNA from the stolen beef jerky..."

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (2, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483551)

Although I absolutely agree with you on the ludicrous claim of $1M for 7 songs, I do think I should point this out...

'The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.

I don't think this case is about distributing, just downloading, but in the typical cases it is about distributing.. so your analogy would have to be akin to going into a 7-11 store, copying their beef jerky, then distributing that for zilch to anybody who asks you for another copy of the 7-11 beef jerky. 7-11 still have their copy of the beef jerky to sell, so there's no harm done to them directly. Just because nobody's actually buying it anymore because they can get it from you for free doesn't magically make it stealing.

Of course.. you can't copy a beef jerky.. the only way for you to be handing out beef jerky is to acquire it yourself - and I very highly doubt you'd be able to give it away for free with no money exhanged somewhere somehow.

So 7x$2.49 or whatever those songs went for back in the day (this is a Napster case, right?) plus a monetary slap on the wrist, and call it a day. Though if I googled it right, it seems that Tenenbaum tried exactly that ($500) and the RIAA didn't take? *shrug*

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (4, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483959)

Of course.. you can't copy a beef jerky.. the only way for you to be handing out beef jerky is to acquire it yourself - and I very highly doubt you'd be able to give it away for free with no money exhanged somewhere somehow.

If I could download beef jerky from the internet, I would definitely give it away to anyone who asked for some.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484263)

screw that, I'd keep it and eat it myself! :D

but, see, you can already download beef jerky from the internet - just that you have to pay the $7.99 or whatever that number was for the privilege of downloading it. Just like you had to pay $2.49 for a song (nowadays $0.99 or whatever?) to do so legally. Just because you can now illegally download jerky for free doesn't quite make it 'right'.

( and yes, I know, downloading music is actually legal in some nations - I'm in one of them - but then distributing often still isn't )

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484067)

The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.

"Theft" bears a much larger moral implication in the minds of people than "copyright infringement" does, which is why people here get riled up at the comparison.

Either way, once again I think that it's more or less agreed that copyright infringement isn't quite as bad as outright theft, so it works like so: you assume a bigger crime than was (supposedly) commited, posit that punishment is proportional to crime, and conclude that, if the proposed punishment seems disproportionate for the greater crime, it must follow that it's also disproportionate for the lesser one. (Yes, copyright infringement isn't necessarily a criminal matter, but it simplifies language)

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484241)

So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.

He's not. He's contrasting it.

-Loyal

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483567)

(Yes I'm bitter this morning; still need my .... coffee.)

Just don't drink too much of it, or you might start seeing good in the RIAA.....

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (4, Interesting)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483569)

CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops record execs...

Fixed. The real problems are/were record companies who were addicted to printing their own money and a market that thinks/thought that making 200%+ profit is/was piss poor performance. Fortunately, the recording industry is finally coming around to the notion that lawyers are only good for collecting sort-term, high-gain revenue, not suing grandma for her Dale Jr. poster.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (0)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483717)

alternately you could use a better damages analogy and say "can you imagine if I stole 7 pieces of jerky, broke it into bits and sold all those bits to several million people at a price of $1.00 per person"

See, the problem with your thinking is she's not being sued for downloading anything. She is being sued for uploading it to other people. HUGE difference.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (2, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484253)

alternately you could use a better damages analogy and say "can you imagine if I stole 7 pieces of jerky, broke it into bits and sold all those bits to several million people at a price of $1.00 per person"

Considering she never *sold* anything, how is that a better analogy?

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483719)

The RIAA POV is like you stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11, somehow scanned it with affordable technology then was able to produce millions of tones of beef jerky, and give it to everyone, with the same flavor as the bags you got, heck you even copied and gave away bags that looked identical.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484071)

This is where you are all wrong, it's more like you BOUGHT $6.99 of beef jerky, reverse engineered it and figured out how to make your own and started giving it away for free.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (4, Funny)

Lord Pillage (815466) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484259)

What I'm wondering is why no one here has yet suggested that the person buys 7 pieces of beef jerky and then just eats them. I know that's what I'd do.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (2, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483735)

Strictly playing the devil's advocate here, but I propose a thought experiment:

Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot. About 40% of the cost of a new vehicle is materials and labor, with another 10% paying for pensions and whatnot for employees, and about 2.5% profit (so they double their profit). The other 50% is engineering, transportation to the dealer, paying the dealer, etc, etc. So the car company doesn't lose out on anything, except the part that I pay for; in fact, they actually just doubled their profit. I suspect that they'd still be pretty pissed off.

A lot of people on slashdot argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't theft, because you aren't denying the record companies the use of what you are accused of stealing. I understand the difference, the car company is selling a physical product, whereas music is much more intangible. But what happens if, in 100 years, we all have nono-assemblers in our garages? Should it be acceptible for me to download the plans to any car I want without paying for the engineering, advertising, and saftey testing?

Again, I'm not saying that I'm on the record companies side, just posing a little thought experiment. I'm not trying to troll of flamebait, just looking for honest insight. If you feel the need to down-mod me, so be it.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483947)

But the blueprints for that vehicle wouldn't be broadcast on TV, Radio and Ring tones.

With music and film, they outwardly broadcast their 'intellectual property'.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484119)

>A lot of people on slashdot argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't theft

That's because it isn't. For one thing, "legal and illegal" music downloading are both described by "downloading copyrighted material" so you need to be much more specific. For another thing, copyright protection is aimed at very different goals from laws concerning theft.

Copyright law does a poor job at "punishing people who consume your work without paying you."

What copyright law is good at, is punishing someone who has taken your work, claimed it as his own, and profiting. But in the situation the RIAA finds itself, this is rarely the case.

You might want to argue that copyright law doesn't go far enough, but that's between you and your representatives.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484345)

Should it be acceptible for me to download the plans to any car I want without paying for the engineering, advertising, and saftey testing?

Of course. The cost for advertising is completely pointless and a waste of money, so no one should have to pay for that. It's just necessary if a company have an inferior product that they want to sell for a higher price than what it's worth. The cost for safety testing is pretty much not necessary unless you plan to sell the car and take responsibility for eventual accidents, and the cost for engineering can be zero, as is evident with the huge amount of real quality free (libre) software out there made by software engineers.

In this theoretical world the car company have it much easier than the record companies though - I bet that a lot of people and companies would like to buy a car that is *not* likely to kill them. A car company in this world can manufacture cars for free with your device, but add a high sum for the safety testing and engineering, and the buyer can rest assure that the car is tested by professionals. Hobby users can still download schematics, check it for basic validity, modify it if they want to, and "print" the car at home.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483873)

The real problem is that the RIAA don't have a product anymore.

They used to control the means of recording. No longer, since the equipment necessary can be got for much, much cheaper than years ago.

They used to control the means of reproduction, in that they could actually mass produce your tapes / CDs for you. No longer, since stamping a CD is incredibly cheap now.

Just about the only thing they still control is radio, and even then that's being eaten into by the internet and things like Pandora and last.fm, which their lobbyists are desperately trying to kill.

Without a real business model, they're scraping for ways to maintain the position of control they used to have, and litigation is a very good way of doing just that, since most people don't have the means to actually fight them.

Last.FM - Stay Away (2, Interesting)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484153)

While I generally agree with your post, its worth pointing out that CBS actually bought Last.FM. And haven't shut it down yet. Makes you wonder what they want out of the deal. Maybe its all that personal information [slashdot.org] they're collecting.

One way or another, I won't let Last.FM anywhere near my computer.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (2, Interesting)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484191)

They never controlled reproduction, and to this day it's still WAY cheaper for the Big 5 to print CDs (massive bulk discounts) than the home musician. That's not to say that it's expensive, though. I printed 1,000 copies of my album in '06 and I'm far from rich.

What the big 5 provided was distribution and promotion. THAT's where they're being hit today thanks to the Internet. I did my album as a fun project. A way to get songs that I had written over the last 5 years "out there", just for fun. Not expecting huge gains or anything. I spend absolutely ZERO time and money promoting it and yet I'm still selling copies from people who find me on last.fm or cdbaby etc. Not anywhere near enough to support myself on, but it's awesome that I'm slowly recouping my investment and not having to work at it.

That's the real issue that I take with the RIAA. As someone who has a passive interest in economics, the RIAA's business model is the same fallacy that you see all over the place where people think that they can get something for nothing. Money is credit, credit is debt and debt is the promise of labour. If you don't produce something of value (labour when you come down to it) then people simply aren't willing to give you their labour in exchange for it. It's extremely simple but people are so caught up in our monetary system that they forget this. And thus they buy into the pipe dream that you can collect more labour for something than you put into it. There may be the odd case where people succeed at those schemes but in the long run the exchange of labour has to balance out or you have slavery.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

harl (84412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483973)

Because that's what the laws says the punishment is.

Contact your members of Congress. They're the ones who made it a million for 7 songs.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483979)

#1: The 7-11 wouldn't be missing their beef jerkey in this case, as downloading copyrighted music is not theft or stealing.
 
#2: The RIAA is trying to say that they didn't only lose the price of each song on iTunes for one person, but that person allowed multiple people to download it from them. They're saying that THOSE downloads are what hurt their wallets.
 
And if you look closer, you can see that none of these cases have been about 'downloading' the music, it's about 'making available' or 'uploading.'

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483987)

One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court?

The court is easily amused, and the RIAA use their Dr. Evil voice when they state the amount.

Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483993)

The model isn't "stealing beef jerky", but "stealing a prized bull from a breeder, producing your own line of livestock, and undercutting your victim." In some places you can still be hanged for that.

Send me a copy (5, Funny)

jep77 (1357465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483189)

I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.

Re:Send me a copy (0)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483263)

I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.

I'm sure it will be all over once it's done. You'd be stupid not to record it.

Re:Send me a copy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483393)

Whoosh

Not on BitTorrent... (1)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483213)

In related news, the RIAA asked that the hearing not be made available over BitTorrent...since, well, BitTorrent is evil, no matter what it is being used for...

Well... (4, Insightful)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483241)

...they bought the rope, measured the proper length of it, cut it, tied it to a tree, formed one end into a noose, gingerly placed their grinning heads in the noose and tightened it, and now we get to see the looks on their faces when someone who saw their preceding actions takes the logical steps and kicks the stool out from under them.

Re:Well... (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484293)

It's not so much 'kicking the stool' as it is 'refusing to hold them up while they teeter on it'. Nobody has to do -anything- for them to hang themselves... They just have to refuse to get them out of their own mess.

Can I find it... (4, Funny)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483277)

on bittorrent?

Re:Can I find it... (1)

skyride (1436439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483649)

Well as long as its nobody downloads using that particular client, we should be all good. :)

Re:Can I find it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483803)

Well as long as its nobody downloads using that particular client, we should be all good. :)

Which client?

Televised in the INTERNET (0, Redundant)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483309)

Fitting. I wonder when the torrents of the stream will be available?

Re:Televised in the INTERNET (1)

sholsinger (1131365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483461)

I might remove my routers' DNS override of thepiratebay and other torrent sites just to download it! ;p

(I'm not about to let my wife get me litigated because she can't resist downloading Sneakers ISOs. True story: She got a cease and desist letter from the cable company for downloading the Sneakers ISO. How ironic.)

Pray for success (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483327)

Just read the last page of the PDF document [beckermanlegal.com].

Let's all pray that the recording and subsequent broadcastings will be a success.

Not all of it... yet (4, Informative)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483403)

The current order is only for the hearing on Jan 22, as NYCL pointed out, which only involves the legal arguments for motions entered by the Defendant's counsel. Further coverage of the rest of the case will be decided then. The judge made a lot of sense in her opinion though, I especially liked this bit:

"Public" today has a new resonance, especially in this case. The claims and issues at stake involve the internet, file-sharing practices, and digital copyright protections. The Defendants are primarily members of a generation that has grown up with the internet, who get their news from it, rather than from the traditional forms of public communication, such as newspapers or television. Indeed, these cases have generated widespread public attention, much of it on the internet. Under the circumstances, the particular relief requested -- "narrowcasting" this proceeding to a public website -- is uniquely appropriate.

Nice to see judges are starting to catch up to this generation.

Re:Not all of it... yet (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483745)

By the judge's logic, bloggers that were the scourge of the Bush admin, derated because of their medium, might now be classified as mainstream news broadcasters.

So what happens.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483407)

...if somebody caps the televised/streamed coverage, and uploads it onto a P2P site, which I then download illegally and share.

Will the RIAA take me to court, which will then be televised.... *recurse infinitely*

Nonono, you got it wrong (5, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483453)

Of course the RIAA wants the public to hear about this case to deter anyone downloading their stuff.

But they want people to hear it from them. Not directly from the court proceedings. Any idiot knows that your statements are only half as powerful if the other side can retort. And few people are interested in hearling both sides of the story, unless it is hassle free do hear it, they're perfectly happy when they just hear one side telling them "the truth". Do you have an idea how incredibly harder it gets to spin something when the other side can call you bluff and show that you're lying through your teeth?

In my experience... (1)

solder_fox (1453905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483707)

The problem isn't usually someone showing you're lying through your teeth (that's hard if you choose your words correctly,) it's one of sympathy. If the audience is sympathetic to your opponent, you lose the argument, and the truth is largely irrelevant.

The best example of this is to listen to both Palestinian and Israeli experts explain a given peace plan independently. Also good is listening to a debate between pro-civil-liberties and pro-catching-terrorists (if we were to let them frame their titles) figures at a rather liberal college, and comparing who the student body listens to with how well the arguments were made. When asked to judge the quality of the debaters, students choose the debater whose position they were predisposed to agree with regardless of whether the person debated well.

Re:In my experience... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26483937)

Well, you make a great statement. Though, I wonder what "debated well" means? That the person was a good public speaker or that person managed to persuade the others to their position? After all, it makes sense that one would lean towards the debater who shares their own opinions, regardless of how well the other person spoke or defended their position. But can we say one "debated well" if they didn't manage to persuade people over to their opinion, even if they presented their argument well?

Re:Nonono, you got it wrong (1)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#26484115)

Any idiot knows that your statements are only half as powerful if the other side can retort.

So the RIAA will hire someone to stand near the camera microphone during the hearing and sing "LA LA LA LA!" whenever someone else is speaking; problem solved.

Of course, then they'll have to sue their opposition obfuscator for an unauthorized narrowcast performance "Brown Eyed Girl".

The fools! (1)

Roadkills-R-Us (122219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483457)

All they had to do was keep quiet. Then after the trial was televised, they could sue everyone who carried the story and everyone who downloaded (watched) it!

It would have as much merit as their other suits; how could they possibly lose?

Re:The fools! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483721)

Somehow I doubt that the courts (who would, if anyone, be the legal owner of the copyright) are members of the RIAA. Talk about conflicting interests...

Now we'll see if the rumors are true! (5, Funny)

thered2001 (1257950) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483523)

I once heard that vampires don't show up on camera. Now we'll know one way or another!

Justice (5, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483635)

Having read the order, I get the sense that the Judge really really understands what is going on and is not going to let them weasel out of their own lies.

The Judge is going to take their claims perfectly literally with no prejudice. They say that they want public knowledge of the suits, thus, she finds it "curious" that they don't want it televised. So, she takes them at their word (wanting public knowledge of the law suits) and "helps" them do what they say they claim to want to do.

Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.

They are stuck because these are counter claims, and while I'm not a lawyer, even if BMG/Sony drop the suit, I believe the counter claims live on. So, they can't drop it. They have to fight a Harvard Law Professor and his students, and it will all be public for display.

I'm going to buy some popcorn and watch.

Re:Justice (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483739)

Man this trial is going to be good. At least as entertaining as when there was an ice storm in Texas and I got a cooler full of beer, went down to the corner, and watched people try to get off the freeway off ramp.

Re:Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26484125)

It won;t escalate like most of us would like. When it's looking like things will go bad, they'll "settle" and not allow it to follow through making a precedent.

DISCLAIMER: (5, Funny)

hendrix2k (1099161) | more than 5 years ago | (#26483679)

"Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this hearing without the express written consent of the Recording Industry Association of America is prohibited and will be subjected to a fine of no less than $1 million per infraction."
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...