Beta

×

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!

Televised RIAA Hearing Adjourned, Briefs Scheduled

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the embarrassed-of-your-job dept.

The Courts 72

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After the lower court adjourned the hearing scheduled to be televised in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, in order to give the appeals court time to determine the RIAA's petition for a writ of 'mandamus or prohibition', the appeals court set a briefing schedule. Apparently expecting amicus curiae briefs to be submitted, the appellate court set January 29th as a deadline for filing of amicus briefs. One commentator opines that 'the last thing Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG RIAA attack lawyers want is for people to see them live and in full, glorious color', while another noted Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."

cancel ×

72 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

you get what you deserve faggots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26582861)

obama is going to be fucking you in your faggot asses hard.

Re:you get what you deserve faggots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583329)

The NOWR (Nigger Organization for White Rape) has a warrant for your immediate capture. The outlaw Hal Turner has committed gross acts of racism and has ignore repeated requests to submit to the NOWR's calls for Justice. We therefore repeat our demand for Mr Hal Turner to submit to the rape of no less than 27 but no more than 50 of our black sodomy warriors. NOWR will NOT be silenced and has on the contrary been a growing movement on slashdot. There have been 29 rapes since the organization's founding at 4:30 PM EST and our director the revered Mr Tyrone Johnson has vowed 29 more before the hour is up if Mr Hal Turner does not comply with our sexual misconduct requests. One request we do respectfully ask of Mr Hal Turner is that upon surrender that he bring his tears to make the experience more memorable.

Yours Truely,
Mr Derek Herman
NOWR Vice President and Sodomy Warrior

Embarrassed? (2, Insightful)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26582871)

I'd be embarrassed too if I was trying to extort children and grandmothers.

Re:Embarrassed? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583119)

you should be more embarrassed that obama is going to bang you in the ass.

Re:Embarrassed? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583227)

YOUR MOM was pretty embarrassed when I was doing that to her last night -- and she said how much YOU ENJOY being banged in the ass, especially by big black dudes.

Signed, A BIG BLACK DUDE

Re:Embarrassed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26585817)

... and don't forget... the dead [theregister.co.uk]

mafia enforcers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26582889)

Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia?

And how have we not slapped them all in jail under the RICO laws yet?

They sure seem like the exact same thing to me...

About the only real diffrence i see at all is the real mafia has some sense of honor and respect.
And thats really stretching it.

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 5 years ago | (#26582933)

Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia?

www.mafiaa.org [mafiaa.org]

Re:mafia enforcers (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583029)

Although their tactics are fairly similar, the RIAA has a lower percentage of Sicilians in it. Also, nobody will ever make a movie about the RIAA... good movies require a villain the average person can relate too. Also, I suspect the Mafia knows when they are violating the law, while the RIAA thinks they are staying within the letter of the law.

Re:mafia enforcers (3, Interesting)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583487)

I don't think the RIAA thinks they are staying within the law.

They view the law as something that must be molded to their desires, and care not if it protects all evenly.

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584585)

The problem is that we are not all thinking that way. After all, it's our law and our country.
But we leave it for those to decide, who are asking for it hard enough, and then rant about the laws being wrong.
Sorry. That's your own fault.

Re:mafia enforcers (4, Informative)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583615)

And if the law doesn't fit what they want to do, they bring out their arsenal of paid congresscritters to change it to their liking. Usually as some footnote to a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with what they want.

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586935)

And if the law doesn't fit what they want to do, they bring out their arsenal of paid congresscritters to change it to their liking. Usually as some footnote to a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with what they want.

Ahhh, yes. The time honored legislative practice that will put an end to freedom and the American way of life in the name of freedom and the American way of life.

Re:mafia enforcers (5, Interesting)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584029)

I have attended several meetings with RIAA executives specifically concerning tactics to prevent piracy among teenagers. I have proposed a marketing model that actually engages piracy in a way that benefits the musicians and labels more than simply selling the music. Nobody bought it. One particularly ignorant turd said something to the effect of "we're not turning this undustry upside-down just because some brats are stealing from us." I compared him to someone refusing to leave their home with a forest fire approaching. End of conversation.

They blame them brat kids for the industry tanking, instead of realizing that it's their fault for failing to adapt. They have been presented numerous options to address the problem, they refuse to make the necessary changes. They curse their luck as they piss into the wind.

A closer comparison would be the tobacco industry. Just be thankful that music doesn't kill anyone.

Never Killed Anyone? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26584491)

You haven't listened to the new Hannah Montanna CD have you?

Re:Never Killed Anyone? (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584723)

Unless the netherworld has an internet connection I guess he hasn't

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586923)

I have attended several meetings with RIAA executives specifically concerning tactics to prevent piracy among teenagers.

Umm, So Dante, when you left the meeting, were you advised to not look backwards so that you could escape the bowels of Hell unmolested?

Re:mafia enforcers (2, Interesting)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26587317)

I have attended several meetings with RIAA executives specifically concerning tactics to prevent piracy among teenagers.

Umm, So Dante, when you left the meeting, were you advised to not look backwards so that you could escape the bowels of Hell unmolested?

No, I looked backwards, to let them know I would be back. They then torpedoed my other projects. I didn't suffer from it, but others did. I'll never make that mistake again.

There is a word that is feared by everyone in the music industry that can't live up to their promises: guarantee. Watch out for that word. It's going to pop up in weird places in the next year.

Re:mafia enforcers (2, Informative)

cheros (223479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596605)

Interesting post, but I must admit "guarantee" means little to me without context.

Would you care to elaborate a bit?

On a related note, a while back I was talking to some people who apparently make movies for a living (accidental, just met these people in a pub) and it was interesting. They do need education on the effects of copying (and the various types of it, because "piracy" is to me the wholesale manufacturing not the "I'll make a copy for a friend" type) but what I found fascinating is that the whole region limiting is apparently because of a small minority. Most of these guys intensely disliked it for the same reasons I dislike it too: it stops legitimate customers buy anywhere. People that travel have money and are bored, so stopping exactly that group from buying is seen as incredibly stupid but it appears there are some reasons they're stuck with this idea..

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

mcnellis (1420749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26589931)

It's hilarious that they truly think teenage brats are singlehandedly ruining their business. It almost makes me glad that they fail at understanding the technology that much just because it's so funny that a bunch of old white crusty businessmen are trying to fight (and losing to) a bunch of 13 year olds...epic fail indeed.

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26585169)

Also, nobody will ever make a movie about the RIAA

"Coming soon, in a theater near you, Oliver Stone's and Michael Moore's 'RIAA' . . . please go out to the lobby, and buy some popcorn . . . a Monster Bucket."

Re:mafia enforcers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26586803)

Ah, but what if the RIAA is the protagonist, and the average person is the villain? Can the average person relate to the average person?

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26587505)

Well, I don't know about that. Sure as hell don't hope too many people relate to the Joker in the last Batman movie.

Re:mafia enforcers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26589195)

I did. I seriously did. I even felt a little freaked out about it myself, as I had a very strong empathic understanding of him while watchign that movie. It was kind of spooky, putting yourself in someone like thats shoes, feeling so RIGHT when you do, then performing a neutral 3rd party observation of said person's mental state.

I honestly disturbed myself, but at least I know not to turn my back on myself now. :D

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

s0l1dsnak3123 (1244796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26593177)

lol!

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583013)

Simple. The RIAA is an organization which exists.

Re:mafia enforcers (4, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583177)

Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia? And how have we not slapped them all in jail under the RICO laws yet? They sure seem like the exact same thing to me... About the only real diffrence i see at all is the real mafia has some sense of honor and respect. And thats really stretching it.

Well this writer on Dow Jones Market Watch [blogspot.com] agrees with you.

Re:mafia enforcers (2, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586657)

Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia?

The mafia label is just too cool for them. I say we give them back the pirate label, and we call ourselves the mafia. After all, pirates kill, rape, steal, and completely destroy people and goods. And the mafia, the real mafia at least, does very little violence and enables the international distribution of gray market goods.

Re:mafia enforcers (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586907)

And the mafia, the real mafia at least, does very little violence and enables the international distribution of gray market goods.

I bet every poor sob that found himself in the middle of night out in the middle of nowheres in New Jersey looking into the opening of a meat grinder thought the same thing. :)

I can hear a bunch of wise guys buried in cement laughing in their graves.

"You're a funny guy!" :)

Re:mafia enforcers (2, Funny)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26587095)

Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia?

Sure. The mafia's operations are often highly illegal. They threaten people's lives, and even carry out those threats, which is even worse. Furthermore, they use intimidation, often using the afore-mentioned threats, to strong-arm competitors out of the field.

The RIAA does none of that. They're operation is entirely legal, and, if they have a problem with a person, they don't rely on violence, or threats thereof, in order resolve their disputes. Instead, they use the court system like we are all supposed to when negotiation fails. Also, unlike the mafia, they make all their money from legitimate business that contributes to society around them.

Did that clear things up?

Re:mafia enforcers (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26589853)

They're operation is entirely legal, and, if they have a problem with a person, they don't rely on violence, or threats thereof, in order resolve their disputes. Instead, they use the court system like we are all supposed to when negotiation fails. Also, unlike the mafia, they make all their money from legitimate business that contributes to society around them.

Are you aware that in strongly contested cases they have relied on such tactics as (a) investigating high school classmates at the local high school and (b) having an investigator impersonating a 10 year old's grandmother making a call to the child's school?

Are you aware that there is almost nothing about their lawsuits that is "legal".

Are you aware that they are engaged in illegal investigations?

Are you aware that they have hired retired police officers to advise defendants that copyright infringement is a criminal matter?

Are you aware that their conduct often borders on, or crosses the boundary into, extortion?

Are you aware that they knowingly bring, and the continue to prosecute, sham lawsuits against people who they know have not infringed their copyrights?

Are you aware that their lawyers on a daily basis sign court documents which they know are false?

Are you aware that they have been deliberately violating a court order since 2004?

Are you aware that they have been deliberately flouting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

If I thought their conduct was "legal" I would resign from the Bar immediately, because I wouldn't be a part of a legal system that condoned their vile conduct.

However, the reality is that they violate the law on a daily basis, just like other organized criminals to whom we are analogizing them.

Re:mafia enforcers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26592517)

They're operation is entirely legal, and, if they have a problem with a person, they don't rely on violence, or threats thereof, in order resolve their disputes. Instead, they use the court system like we are all supposed to when negotiation fails. Also, unlike the mafia, they make all their money from legitimate business that contributes to society around them.

Are you aware that in strongly contested cases they have relied on such tactics as (a) investigating high school classmates at the local high school and (b) having an investigator impersonating a 10 year old's grandmother making a call to the child's school?

Are you aware that there is almost nothing about their lawsuits that is "legal".

Are you aware that they are engaged in illegal investigations?

Are you aware that they have hired retired police officers to advise defendants that copyright infringement is a criminal matter?

Are you aware that their conduct often borders on, or crosses the boundary into, extortion?

Are you aware that they knowingly bring, and the continue to prosecute, sham lawsuits against people who they know have not infringed their copyrights?

Are you aware that their lawyers on a daily basis sign court documents which they know are false?

Are you aware that they have been deliberately violating a court order since 2004?

Are you aware that they have been deliberately flouting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

  If I thought their conduct was "legal" I would resign from the Bar immediately, because I wouldn't be a part of a legal system that condoned their vile conduct.

However, the reality is that they violate the law on a daily basis, just like other organized criminals to whom we are analogizing them.

I think someone fell into the sarchasm...

Re:mafia enforcers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26594103)

They're operation is entirely legal

"Their".

Go Judge! (5, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26582985)

Gertner noted that the decision did not limit streaming to the Berkman Center's Web site, saying RIAA also is free to subscribe to the CVN recording and to make it available to the public at a Web site of its choosing, provided that the group observes conditions already set by the court, including streaming unedited material. Gertner's effectively saying "You can stream it yourselves too, assholes!" which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?

Re:Go Judge! (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583067)

Gertner noted that the decision did not limit streaming to the Berkman Center's Web site, saying RIAA also is free to subscribe to the CVN recording and to make it available to the public at a Web site of its choosing, provided that the group observes conditions already set by the court, including streaming unedited material. Gertner's effectively saying "You can stream it yourselves too, assholes!"

yes she is

which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?

Indeed it does

Re:Go Judge! (1, Troll)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26585101)

OK, I know your NYCL, but seriously? +5 Informative for just agreeing with the parent and reformatting it?
Not that its your fault, but sometimes I suspect that people mod purely based on reputation without actually reading.

Re:Go Judge! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26585553)

If NYCL says a post is correct, it means +11 Informative.
(Slashdot software can't even get to +10) \m/

Re:Go Judge! (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26585605)

Good call. Just like Wikipedia, I see a lot of crap on /. I think sounds viable, but I'm never sure if it's got a truthful standing in actual fact. Having an attorney agree with it gives it much more standing as factual, or at least not totally false - I'd like to see that affirmation stand out in a crowd of comments. Therefore a +5 is warranted, IMHO.

Plus, since they don't do numbers anymore, once you've got a certain amount of karma, it really doesn't matter anymore.

Re:Go Judge! (1)

PMuse (320639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595999)

No upward moderation is merited by a comment that merely says, "me too", without adding any new information. Moderators can mod up the original comment based on the reputation of the me-tooer if they want to, but that doesn't mean that the /. population needs to see the same quotation twice.

It so happens that in this case, the me-tooer was a fine, upstanding /.er who rightly me-tooed a fine, insightful post. We still should not be modding up a me-too.

But that isn't their problem (2, Funny)

wasted (94866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584961)

Gertner's effectively saying "You can stream it yourselves too,..."

The RIAA's problem is that they don't want to stream it. They want to record it to digital media with DRM and lots of audio effects to make it sound more like they want it to sound, release it on a geographically-based schedule to maximize marketing, and charge a disproportionate price.

Re:But that isn't their problem (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586893)

The RIAA's problem is that they don't want to stream it. They want to record it to digital media with DRM and lots of audio effects to make it sound more like they want it to sound, release it on a geographically-based schedule to maximize marketing, and charge a disproportionate price.

You mean like a Britney Spear's Album?

Re:But that isn't their problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26587333)

You mean like a Britney Spear's Album?

Yes, but with less music - more like a (c)rap album.

Re:But that isn't their problem (2, Interesting)

cheros (223479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596555)

.. and, of course, after their "value add" of editing out the bits they don't like ..

I like the judges blunt hint that they're welcome to do their own thing with the material IF CONDITIONS ARE OBSERVED. I have the feeling she's got these guy's measure, which is why their current SCO-esque objection strategy is liable to spectacularly backfire.

One can only hope for additional sanctions, because without it it'll only be one case lost against the profit of thousands. Sure, the game is over but if they get to keep the illegal coin it will does not send a message to other legal system gamers that abuse is no longer a tolerated strategy.

IMHO there is a need for judges to start thinking about what to do to clock back the systematic abuse. It is destroying (umm, no, already has) the reputation of the US legal system. Having said that, it's a screaming mess in the UK too who have the added problem that they have full jails so jailtime is probably by invitation now. And the guy who caused this shortage can thus not be locked up either :-/

OK, back to topic. I think this recording needs to be published and maybe sold on CD on a site where you can also donate to whatever effort is set up to go after the RIAA *MEMBERS* for the previous cases as they appear to have been mainly based on misdirection of judges and public. And the RIAA should not be allowed to act as shielding device - there is no way the members can claim they didn't know or were not involved in the strategy and decision. That should have been clear after the first babies and dead people were sued.

It's cleanup time.

Re:Go Judge! (4, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586983)

which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?

That is a cover for their real objections to the stream itself. It's like saying, "I don't like cherries" when offered Cherry Pie but the real reason is that it makes your ass fat.

I forget the specifics, but some woman was representing Sony's interests and said on the stand that ripping a cd (simple media shifting) was exactly the same as stealing.

That's the real reason they don't want it televised. They have enjoyed a vague understanding of copyright and the exact nature of the agreement between the copyright holders and the public at large. Most people have never really understood just what it was that they bought. There has been no clear and explicit statement in laymens terms of just what rights people have to the intellectual property they bought on some continually degrading piece of plastic with grooves, magnetic tape, or piece of plastic that is all shiny. Even less so when there is nothing physical that you can pick up, just all of your music in a laptop or computer.

When the RIAA lawyers, and any Big Media interests testify what their real feelings are regarding our rights, most people would be scathingly pissed off and rightly complain that was not the deal they understood when they bought the music in the stores and later online.

No, No, No. They want to litigate in private where only the smallest tiniest slice of America ever gets to see them present their arguments, since they know their customers would object and the customers are always right .

RIAA hearing? (0)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583055)

I'm pretty sure that the RIAA is not holding this hearing. Rather, it's a hearing of a US court of law.

Mix tape avoidance plan? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583059)

""Unlike a trial transcript, the broadcast of a court proceedings through the Internet will take on a life of its own in that forum. The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual,""

Oh, I get it now. So, what they're basically saying is, they do NOT want someone to use snippets of RIAA trial lawyers in the courtroom to put together a dance club video mix with a "pumping k-hole groove" [colbertnation.com] . (Cue Stephen Colbert)

Easy and just solution (3, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583113)

Televised Hearing Adjourned to February 24th, Judge says RIAA objections relate not to "Whether" but "How" Hearing Should be Televised

They should make the RIAA host copies of the proceedings that people can get as torrents.

Supernatural? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583191)

Maybe the true reason for fighting the televising is that the RIAA lawyers are now so unholy that they can no longer be caught on any type of recording device?

Re:Supernatural? (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583225)

Maybe the true reason for fighting the televising is that the RIAA lawyers are now so unholy that they can no longer be caught on any type of recording device?

You might be right. Let me think about that.

Re:Supernatural? (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26585065)

Perhaps if you put holy water in the fire sprinkler system, then 'accidentally' triggered it...

Re:Supernatural? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26585545)

I took this [cityofthornton.net] picture of an RIAA lawyer behind his back but it didn't turn out so well...you might wanna check out that judge too.

Re:Supernatural? (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584613)

Publicity of the RIAA legal efforts is not their friend. Expose how to beat a weak argument, and that weak argument becomes even weaker.

New arguments? (1)

dj245 (732906) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583213)

Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."

That sounds bad. Anyone know what this actually means for the case?

Re:New arguments? (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583347)

Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."

That sounds bad. Anyone know what this actually means for the case?

You're not supposed to go to an appeals court on arguments you never made in the lower court. It's a waste of their time, and it's not fair to the lower court judge. What it means for the RIAA's petition is that it's unfounded.

Re:New arguments? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583667)

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean the court will refuse to hear the claims, then the riaa WILL present them to the lower court, which will then reject them, THEN the riaa will appeal that decision. Essentially amounting to at least 6 months of ridiculous nonsense to settle a few bogus claims?

Re:New arguments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583747)

Do you get to do that? Wait till the judge makes a ruling, then come back "Oh, but I forgot to mention this..." and ask for another ruling?

Re:New arguments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26588783)

Some lawyers make this kind of thing their primary field of work, it seems. Just look at the SCO cases...

Re:New arguments? (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583955)

Ok, so it's more procedural stuff being filed on shaky ground. I assume there are rules and precedents that apply as to when cameras may be allowed? Unless they can come up with a reason that's acceptable to the judges, it will be broadcast eventually. How does that benefit them in the long run? A delaying tactic?

These guys are unbelievable.

Re:New arguments? (2, Informative)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584135)

The general rule is that arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived. That means that the appellate court should summarily dismiss those arguments.

--AC

Cockroaches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26583325)

hate the light.

Royalty (4, Funny)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583331)

They should make the RIAA pay a royalty for every downloaded viewing of the trial - that'll teach 'em.

I couldn't watch the hearing live anyway... (3, Funny)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583337)

But I will be the first to download it!

Re:I couldn't watch the hearing live anyway... (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584899)

But will you make it available?

Re:I couldn't watch the hearing live anyway... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26588527)

Gosh no! That's the same as copyright infringement; everyone knows that.

arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court (3, Interesting)

glrotate (300695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583795)

"arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court ... had never been raised in the lower court."

If this is a writ of prohibition how is it relevant?

Re:arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals cou (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26583849)

"arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court ... had never been raised in the lower court."

If this is a writ of prohibition how is it relevant?

That's easy. Because the 1st Circuit doesn't want to waste its time reviewing something that might not have had to be reviewed. The Judge's second order has already obviated 90% of the argument the RIAA's lawyers made in their petition.

RIAA are the good guys! (3, Funny)

jnork (1307843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584229)

They also argued that the relationship between CVN, Tenenbaum and Nesson "strongly suggested that the proposed broadcast was not for in furtherance of the public interest, but rather part of a larger strategy to advance defendant's and his counsel's interests in connection with this case."

So... the RIAA are in this for the public good, but Tenenbaum is a greedy grasping malicious dastard who would sell his own grandmother for fifteen cents (US) and a cherry lollipop.

Riiiiiight. And I've got this handy bridge, care to make a bid?

The RIAA are the good guys. You can tell because they say so.

Reminds me of something I stepped in before. YUCK! (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26584343)

Sheesh!
This is getting as/more ridiculous as/than the SCO vs. IBM trial.

If not for the major implications riding on this whole subject, this would be as entertaining as watching 'The Three Stooges' all over again. Ludicrous!

Hmm...Is Daryl pimping out his lawyer pack to the RIAA to raise cash? Or was it just coincidence that both bunches were dredged up from the same slime pool?

'What goes around, comes around.' I hope this works here!

Preventing vicious circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26584845)

The RIAA is simply trying to avoid a vicious circle. What if during the televised event someone gets a call and has a song that's copyrighted by one if its members as a ringtone? The RIAA would have no choice but to sue the court for blatant copyright infringement, which of course would also need to be televised, during which someones phone will ring... etc. ad infinitum.

The RIAA is trying to save the taxpayer a lot of money! :)

Massachusetts rules? (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586183)

While the RIAA's policy arguments are easily dismissed, it isn't so clear to me that they are wrong about the Massachusetts rules prohibiting broadcasting. Would someone knowledgable (e.g. Ray Beckerman) care to comment on that aspect of the argument?

Re:Massachusetts rules? (2, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26586645)

Basically, the Massachusetts rules say that courtroom proceedings may be broadcast if they fall into certain categories "or by order of the court", which is generally taken to mean that the court can allow other proceedings to be broadcast at it's discretion. The RIAA wants to read that rule as "and by order of the court", limiting the court to allowing broadcasting only of the categories specified.

Also, when the RIAA appeals to the rules of the Judicial Conference, it glosses over the fact that the Judicial Conference has no authority to dictate rules to the courts under it and that no court under it has actually adopted it's proposed prohibition on broadcasting proceedings.

Re:Massachusetts rules? (3, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26589867)

Basically, the Massachusetts rules say that courtroom proceedings may be broadcast if they fall into certain categories "or by order of the court", which is generally taken to mean that the court can allow other proceedings to be broadcast at it's discretion. The RIAA wants to read that rule as "and by order of the court", limiting the court to allowing broadcasting only of the categories specified. Also, when the RIAA appeals to the rules of the Judicial Conference, it glosses over the fact that the Judicial Conference has no authority to dictate rules to the courts under it and that no court under it has actually adopted it's proposed prohibition on broadcasting proceedings.

Yeah well the RIAA lawyers tore those pages out of the law books.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>