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!

MP3 of RIAA Argument Available Online

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the topping-playlists-everywhere dept.

The Courts 73

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Download this: an MP3 file of the hearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, over whether a lower court proceeding in an RIAA case can be made available online, is now available online. The irony of course is palpable, not only because a court which freely makes its proceedings available across the internet is being asked by the RIAA, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, to prevent the district court from making similar proceedings available across the internet, but also because the end product is an MP3 file which can be freely downloaded, shared by email, shared through p2p file sharing, and even 'remixed.' The legal arguments focused on relatively narrow issues: the interpretation of a rule enacted in the District Court of Massachusetts, and the legal effect of a resolution by the First Circuit Judicial Council, rather than on broader First Amendment grounds."

cancel ×

73 comments

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

Obligatory (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525165)

itsatrap !!!! If the RIAA won't sue you for it they'll put you down on an 'enemies' list and sue you later.

Re:Obligatory (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525227)

Coming soon: RIAA sues 10-yo girl for sharing this particular MP3, demanding 300 millon dollars for lost profits.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526487)

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

Re:Obligatory (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27528525)

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

I knew it.

Re:Obligatory (3, Funny)

vandelais (164490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525387)

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

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525735)

I'll just wait for someone to put it on TPB.

Re:Obligatory (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525797)

I'll just wait for someone to put it on TPB.

And then post a link to it on Facebook [slashdot.org] .

Sensationalism! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525223)

Any other transcript or legal document in this case or any other RIAA case could have been read aloud (or spoken aloud by computer software) and made into an MP3. There is nothing interesting, unique, or special about this part of the RIAA argument being available online in an MP3 format.

I dislike the RIAA and their policies, but this kind of reaction is embarrassing.

Re:Sensationalism! (4, Insightful)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525235)

It's called irony.

Where's my OGG?! Or better yet, my FLAC?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525239)

mp3 is so 90s.

Torrent link... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525475)

...or it didn't happen.

Re:Torrent link... (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27528921)

What, the 90s? Yeah, I wish it hadn't.

In MP3 format, so what? (3, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525255)

Is there something that prevents plain AAC, WAV, AIFF, OGG, FLAC or other common audio file formats to be freely downloaded, shared by email, shared through P2P file sharing and even 'remixed'?

Technically speaking, of course... I'm not talking about any legal/moral ramifications if the file has copyrighted/top secret/whatever contents.

Re:In MP3 format, so what? (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525431)

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

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

Re:In MP3 format, so what? (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27527709)

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

Exactly, Chabo.

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

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

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

Crappy server or just slashdotted? (4, Funny)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525277)

I'm currently downloading it -- at a screamin' 0.7kb/sec. That's okay, the entertainment value will doubtless be well worth it.

Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (4, Funny)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525359)

It must be because you're not in California. I am, and my download's going ten times faster than that. Sucker!

Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27526133)

Maybe, but it's also giving you cancer.

Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525391)

Nope, the crappy part is close to you, because my download started at around 5 KB/sec and is now steady at around 8 KB/sec.

Your download speed of 0.0875 KB/sec is sad to say the least. ;)

Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525453)

I think he meant "0.7 kilobytes per second", but put "kb" because it's easier. Most applications report in bytes anyway, not bits.

Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526211)

It's when they report their speed in millibits per second that get me. I remember dialing up at a whopping 110,000 millibits per second on a portable acoustic-coupler terminal with a thermal printer for a display! And I still have that terminal, too.

Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525523)

That's okay... once it's downloaded I am going to make it available on BitTorrent... no need to wait for slow servers anymore!

P2P FTW.

PLEASE, I BEG YOU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27526757)

Put a torrent of this on The Pirate Bay! I can't think of a more fitting venue...

Re:PLEASE, I BEG YOU... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27527077)

Put a torrent of this on The Pirate Bay! I can't think of a more fitting venue...

torrent 1 [thepiratebay.org]
torrent 2 [thepiratebay.org]

SONY BMG v. Tenenbaum Apr. 9 oral arguments.mp3 (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27536993)

is now being seeded as a BitTorrent.

Re:SONY BMG v. Tenenbaum Apr. 9 oral arguments.mp3 (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27539005)

now being seeded as a BitTorrent

It is also ironic is that of the 40,000 cases the RIAA brought, not a single one involved BitTorrent (to the best of my knowledge); all involved Gnutella (LimeWire, e.g.) or FastTrack (Kazaa, e.g.). I.e., using the "technology" they used to harangue those 40,000 souls, they could not detect this oral argument file.

Re:SONY BMG v. Tenenbaum Apr. 9 oral arguments.mp3 (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27540165)

Well, hey... download it from me, so it will be seeded from more than one place! I doubt it's quite in the Top 40 as of yet.

Re:SONY BMG v. Tenenbaum Apr. 9 oral arguments.mp3 (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27540183)

Oh crap. I restarted my machine and my BitTorrent client was not running. Silly me.

Re:SONY BMG v. Tenenbaum Apr. 9 oral arguments.mp3 (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27540217)

Oh, and hey... does that mean I won't end up on Hugh Jackman's shitlist after all?

(Just kidding!)

Re:Crappy server or just slashdotted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525617)

mine is at 1.5kb

w00h00

Someone, please... (4, Interesting)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525327)

Can someone please post the MP3 on YouTube?

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

Re:Someone, please... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525423)

And then post links to that on FaceBook, mySpace, myBook, FaceSpace and BookFace, or whatever the hell they're called.

Re:Someone, please... (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525467)

I prefer myFace.

Re:Someone, please... (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525537)

And then post links to that on FaceBook, mySpace, myBook, FaceSpace and BookFace, or whatever the hell they're called.

Nah, those are soooo last month. Everyone's on Twitbookspacer now.

The good news is, once the next big thing comes along and people move on to that, there won't be so many twits online anymore!

Re:Someone, please... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525883)

I've not heard of Twitbookspacer yet, but I have heard of Twatspace.

Re:Someone, please... (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27528943)

Is that the name of the motel where all the hookers loiter?

Re:Someone, please... (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526007)

  The way things are going, the next successful blog will probably be InYourFace.

SB

Re:Someone, please... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525731)

I assume it sounds like a balloon popping.

Re:Someone, please... (3, Insightful)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526845)

Here you go:

Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RHBDwlH8c [youtube.com]
Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHAF39JxNs [youtube.com]
Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06BJu9GVU-w [youtube.com]
Part 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JcOi6htmHM [youtube.com]
Part 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9idglz0ANA [youtube.com]
Part 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWOAR6ZU0JA [youtube.com]

9 min 10 sec each, last is 1 min 10 sec

Re:Someone, please... (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27527835)

Thank you.

Now we just wait for the DMCAs to start rolling in, and the head-popping will begin.

Re:Someone, please... (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27527935)

mariushm, Thank you for putting it up on YouTube. I've linked to your above comment, providing the YouTube segments, in my blog post.

Re:Someone, please... (1)

gzine (949554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27531369)

You sir are what make the interwebs AWESOME! too bad i have no mod points.

Re:Someone, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27528697)

IANAL, but I do have exploding head syndrome, you insensitive clod!

Re:Someone, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27528863)

Tom Servo, on my ./?!

Wait stop! (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525357)

STACK OVERFLOW

Paging all nerdy internet DJs (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525597)

Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat!

If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P.

Re:Paging all nerdy internet DJs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525937)

I want to hear this sample played over a pumping, k-hole groove.

Re:Paging all nerdy internet DJs (4, Funny)

click2005 (921437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526027)

Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat!

The RIAA companies will probably try to offer them a recording contract... it'll be better than anything they've churned out in years.

Re:Paging all nerdy internet DJs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27527297)

Donk it! [donkdj.com]

Re:Paging all nerdy internet DJs (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27527847)

Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat! If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P.

I am looking forward to some of that creative workmanship, and will link to it on my blog.

Re:Paging all nerdy internet DJs (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27555301)

At least nobody's mentioned mashups so far. Er ...

Torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27525773)

Direct download is too slow

please add the "gettowork" tag (1)

exabrial (818005) | more than 5 years ago | (#27525977)

I'm looking for to Engadget's or TheRegister's Remix contest

The Irony is Better Than the Content (1)

rbf2000 (862211) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526045)

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

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

PS, I think I created a torrent TPB [thepiratebay.org]

Re:The Irony is Better Than the Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27526209)

You can at least seed the damn thing, if you are going to share it.

Re:The Irony is Better Than the Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27526309)

Yeah and since he's a law student, he might get lucky and have the RIAA log his IP. They're always looking to replace the lawyers they burn out.

New torrent, both files (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27526467)

Another torrent here; contains both original and edited files:

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

Re:The Irony is Better Than the Content (3, Interesting)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27527097)

Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation.

All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.

Re:The Irony is Better Than the Content (3, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27527897)

Having listened to it just now, it seems that the RIAA has the most persuasive argument. The RIAA's argument is based upon precedent, whilst the defendant's lawyer seems to make a plea based upon zeitgeist. The judge made a good point that while that seems like a good argument for changing the rule, it doesn't seem to hold much water with regards to the rule's current interpretation. All in all, it was a very educational experience. I haven't heard oral arguments like this and I actually enjoyed listening. I for one hope that the trial ends up being broadcasted, but based upon the arguments presented and the responses from the panel, I'm going to place my chips on the RIAA. Sorry.

Here [blogspot.com] 's my prediction.

Re:The Irony is Better Than the Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27565475)

Stop the presses! Crazy Ray's prediction is against the industry! Too bad you'll be wrong. Despite your irrational, seething hatred of the music business, the appellate judges are not going to eliminate vast portions of statutes and go against their own judicial conference report (which was supported by concurring testimony before Congress that such broadcasting was to remain banned).

What's next? (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526419)

A movie of the MPAA's argument?

Re:What's next? (1)

mundanetechnomancer (1343739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27528309)

hopefully as a divx

I love it. (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526679)

Ray, I hope you are having fun with this. The irony is just delicious.

This story provides... (2, Funny)

kernel panic attack (810175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27526909)

This story provides Three times the the US RDA of Irony....

Re:This story provides... (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27528049)

This story provides Three times the the US RDA of Irony....

The truth is stranger than fiction.

Boooring (0, Flamebait)

graffitirock (1481313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27528623)

Downloading an mp3 of lawyers arguing? Man you guys are dorks.

What a weak waste of time (2, Insightful)

Evets (629327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27529283)

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

It looks pretty straightforward to me. Unless it's specifically mentioned in the rules (voice recordings by court reporters, etc.), you need a court order to record and broadcast a court proceeding.

In this case, the court heard arguments, provided a court order for the broadcast. These guys are arguing that the court had no right to make the order - and that right is given in the first sentence of the first subsection in rule 83.3 regarding Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting.

It's a waste of the courts time, taxpayer dollars, and the client's money - both the plaintiff and the defendant.

Think about it... the judge got paid, the court reporter got paid, the bailiffs got paid to be in the room. A transcript was made, people were tasked with scheduling this thing, putting the paperwork surrounding this hearing online, and so on and so forth. All for what amounts to a first year law student project to come up with an argument to push a court into restricting it's own power.

The RIAA attorneys should be fined for bringing this action.

Re:What a weak waste of time (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27530147)

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

It looks pretty straightforward to me. Unless it's specifically mentioned in the rules (voice recordings by court reporters, etc.), you need a court order to record and broadcast a court proceeding.
In this case, the court heard arguments, provided a court order for the broadcast. These guys are arguing that the court had no right to make the order - and that right is given in the first sentence of the first subsection in rule 83.3 regarding Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting.
It's a waste of the courts time, taxpayer dollars, and the client's money - both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Think about it... the judge got paid, the court reporter got paid, the bailiffs got paid to be in the room. A transcript was made, people were tasked with scheduling this thing, putting the paperwork surrounding this hearing online, and so on and so forth. All for what amounts to a first year law student project to come up with an argument to push a court into restricting it's own power.
The RIAA attorneys should be fined for bringing this action.

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

Re:What a weak waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27540713)

It's not as straighforward as you would like, and indeed, the petitioner's arguments are the more persuasive of the two.

The first part -- "Except as specifically provided in these rules..." clearly refers to subparts (b) and (d) permitting the use of recording devices by the clerks and court reporters.

The second -- "or by order of the court" therefore has to relate to the only section left (c), which has a permissive "may" written into it. If the court does allow, for purposes for purposes of this subsection, some form of recording media for a ceremonial or naturalization event, then it has to provide so by a court order.

Aside from those ceremonial or naturalization events, the statute precludes the court from allowing recording media in all other events.

Any other reading leads to superfluous language in the statute. If the court could, at any time, order a recording by court order, then why have (c) at all? Moreover, if the court were free to order a recording at any time, then what purpose does the pilot program statute in 83.3.3 serve?

Reading the statute in this manner is consistent with preserving the intent of both section (c) and 83.3.3, as well as the Judicial Conference report and, pretty much, the procedures of every other federal court in the country.

Re:What a weak waste of time (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27541807)

Very misleading AC post. The only people I know who twist the facts to that extent are RIAA lawyers.

Re:What a weak waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27545735)

"The only pe[rson] I know who twist[s] the facts to that extent..." is crazy Ray Beckerman who is fueled by such a hatred and deep-seeded bias that all logic and reason is lost on him.

Re:What a weak waste of time (1)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27549377)

Oh, I don't know. SCO's lawyers could give them a run for their money...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?