Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News

RIAA Argument About Streaming To Be Streamed 92

Posted by Soulskill
from the who-streams-the-streamers dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the district court ruled that an oral argument about the constitutionality of statutory damages could be streamed, and the RIAA has been fighting that with a petition for 'mandamus or prohibition' in the appeals court, which is opposed by the press. Interestingly, it now turns out that the appeals court's oral argument about the streaming will itself be recorded and then streamed. It is hard to imagine how a court which routinely streams its own oral arguments can rule that it is somehow inappropriate for similar oral arguments in the district court to be streamed as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Argument About Streaming To Be Streamed

Comments Filter:
  • Bring it on! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by earthforce_1 (454968) <earthforce_1@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Saturday March 14, 2009 @12:10AM (#27190077) Journal

    The truth shall set you free!

    Stream away!

    • Veritas Vos Liberabit!

    • The truth shall set you free!

      Stream away!

      Just don't cross the streams.

      Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.

      Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?

      Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.

      Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?

      Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

    • by ivucica (1001089)

      In Soviet Russia, you free TRUTH! ...hm that didn't come out right.

  • Hah-hah!

  • by mizzouxc (985151) on Saturday March 14, 2009 @12:12AM (#27190085)

    I wonder if the RIAA will attempt to sue the court system for this as well as storing a copy in some audio format? You know, they need records (pun intended)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by arbiter1 (1204146)

      wouldn't surprise me for them to sue the court claimin' they are owners of the copy writes to it

    • I wonder if the RIAA will attempt to sue the court system for this as well as storing a copy in some audio format?

      Clearly, they'll sue the court for lighting the building with its own, paid for, power supply.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tuoqui (1091447)

      Sure couldn't hurt. I'm bet it'll be more interesting than Brittney Spears Album #2983

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by shentino (1139071)

      Actually if I remember correctly from Business Law, reproduction during a court proceeding is considered fair use. Along with legislation and "parody or satire".

    • by pmarini (989354)
      isn't that the same as humming a song in the shower ? - (the fMRI in the other slashdot article + the "remote" fingerprinting could just make it easier to pinpoint the "criminal")
  • Dammit... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheSpoom (715771) * <slashdot@@@uberm00...net> on Saturday March 14, 2009 @12:23AM (#27190121) Homepage Journal

    This article just put my brain into an infinite loop. Thanks a lot, RIAA.

  • by Aranykai (1053846) <slgonserNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday March 14, 2009 @12:24AM (#27190125)

    Being a friday evening, I entreat you to please avoid using "stream", "streamed", and "streaming" seven times within as many lines of text. Many of us have already been drinking and you are hurting our brains.

    Thank you,
    Drunk Sladhsot Reader.

    • 3 martinis later I agree - hard enough to find the caps lock key. Damned glad I didn't have to drive tonight.

    • by squidfood (149212) on Saturday March 14, 2009 @12:54AM (#27190247)

      I entreat you to please avoid using "stream", "streamed", and "streaming" seven times within as many lines of text.

      Those responsible for streaming this stream of streaming streams have been streamed.

      • Damn, you beat me to it. LOL
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        I entreat you to please avoid using "stream", "streamed", and "streaming" seven times within as many lines of text.

        Those responsible for streaming this stream of streaming streams have been streamed.

        In Soviet Russia, it is the streams that would have been streamed, instead of the other way around.

        • If there was doubt before, there is none now...You are one of us.... help us!!!!

          How do you find the time to juggle all of the balls you have in mid-air?????[I, for one , am glad you are currently juggling the balls!]

          No, really!???

          I check out your blog, check /., and other online sources...But I've often wondered how much sleep you average per week/month.

          Are you an android or AI??*

          (keep juggling, IMHO-your doing great!!!)

          *maybe I'm just lazy, but how do you keep up???

          • If there was doubt before, there is none now...You are one of us....

            Thanks. help us!!!! How do you find the time to juggle all of the balls you have in mid-air?????

            By neglecting my family and myself.

            [I, for one , am glad you are currently juggling the balls!]

            I, for one, am not so sure.

            No, really!???

            Really by neglecting my family and myself.

            I check out your blog

            Thank you

            , check /., and other online sources...

            Thank you for staying well informed; it's the primary reason I enjoy it here more than other places on the internet.

            But I've often wondered how much sleep you average per week/month.

            Not nearly as much as I should be getting; I could use a sabbatical.

            Are you an android or AI??*

            No, more like Robocop. Remnants of a human being, reassembled by special fibers; in my case the fibers are made of anger.

            (keep juggling

            Thank you

            , IMHO-your doing great!!!)

            IMHO if I was doing great I would have made the judges understand a long time ago what a line they've been handed; most tech people, and most well read people, understand. But I have yet to get the judges to understand, although they seem to be starting to wake up. *maybe I'm just lazy, but how do you keep up???

            • by rts008 (812749)

              IMHO if I was doing great I would have made the judges understand a long time ago what a line they've been handed; most tech people, and most well read people, understand. But I have yet to get the judges to understand, although they seem to be starting to wake up. *maybe I'm just lazy, but how do you keep up???

              Please, keep chipping away at the citadel!
              We are on your[our] side in this fight, good sir.(rome was not built in a day, as they say)

              Thanks for:
              1.) Fighting the 'good fight'
              2.) Keeping us nerds(yes,

              • Thanks, rts. Much appreciated. Your advice is sound. Probably what I should be doing is hiring some more NYCL's to assist me. Then I would have more time for living and for my family.
    • by dnaumov (453672)

      YO DAWG! I herd you like streams so we put a stream in your stream so you can stream while u stream!

    • by Daimanta (1140543)

      "Many of us have already been drinking and you are hurting our brains."

      Does drinking help? I can't make spaghetti out of this.

      • by rts008 (812749)

        Oh ye of insufficient imagination....You have foolishly squandered your tech base if it does not include Ramon noodles...beware!!!!!

    • Yo' Dawg! I heard yo liked streams, so I put streaming streams in your streamer, so you can stream while you stream.

  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Saturday March 14, 2009 @12:24AM (#27190127) Journal

    ... the arguments might have to expose some information that should be under seal.

    And I fail to see how anything like that might come up in a constitutionality-of-statutory-damages argument.

    But IANAL. (Hi, NYCL!)

    • I'd expect the decision to hinge on whether the arguments might have to expose some information that should be under seal.
      And I fail to see how anything like that might come up in a constitutionality-of-statutory-damages argument. But IANAL.

      There is no way anything like that might come up. The RIAA lawyers just don't want the public to see what goes on in these cases, and don't want the defendants' lawyers in other cases to have access to the information.

      • So, I just read an article off your website, and while it made good and obvious sense that the RIAA wouldn't want to be publicly embarrassed, I had never put together just how much control over the information they really have, and how crucial this control of information is to the legal campaign they're waging.

        I mean, it's as if they're waging a thousand-front war and winning on the basis of a gimmicky weapon, and on each of the fronts, their enemies are completely unable to communicate with one another and unsure what strategies to pursue.

        Who else is getting sued? Who else is even fighting the suit? Who else is settling? How much did they settle for? The only people who know the full details are the ones bringing the lawsuits. As best I can tell, from your writeup, it seems that even the COURTS don't know what's been done previously, as the RIAA brings motion after motion filled with reasons to join a number of cases that have already been denied several times.

        What a brilliant and strange strategy. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even think of another possible life example for something like this, never mind a legal one. Has anything like this ever been done before?

        • I'd amend the "thousand-front war" to "shooting fish in a barrel". Few of the RIAA driftnet targets have the time or resources to mount a defense, let alone proceed with a trial.

          • I'd amend the "thousand-front war" to "shooting fish in a barrel". Few of the RIAA driftnet targets have the time or resources to mount a defense, let alone proceed with a trial.

            Well put, magus.

          • "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile." lol. Apple beats Microsoft daily.
        • "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!" That is the gimmicky weapon!!
        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          What a brilliant and strange strategy. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even think of another possible life example for something like this, never mind a legal one. Has anything like this ever been done before?

          Not really, but it's worth noting that suing their customers didn't raise SCO's bottom line except for moments. (Is Darl getting sent to federal PMITA prison, or not? I'd bet on the latter)

        • So, I just read an article off your website, and while it made good and obvious sense that the RIAA wouldn't want to be publicly embarrassed, I had never put together just how much control over the information they really have, and how crucial this control of information is to the legal campaign they're waging.

          I mean, it's as if they're waging a thousand-front war and winning on the basis of a gimmicky weapon, and on each of the fronts, their enemies are completely unable to communicate with one another and unsure what strategies to pursue.

          Who else is getting sued? Who else is even fighting the suit? Who else is settling? How much did they settle for? The only people who know the full details are the ones bringing the lawsuits. As best I can tell, from your writeup, it seems that even the COURTS don't know what's been done previously, as the RIAA brings motion after motion filled with reasons to join a number of cases that have already been denied several times.

          What a brilliant and strange strategy. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even think of another possible life example for something like this, never mind a legal one. Has anything like this ever been done before?

          You've expressed it perfectly. And no, there's never been anything like this insanity before. Which is why, I think, the courts were caught off guard by it. Had they been more vigilant, like the courts of Canada and the Netherlands, this would have been nipped in the bud 5 1/2 years ago.

    • by Tuoqui (1091447)

      Clearly they need such protection for NATIONAL SECURITY! You know just like that ACTA Treaty they're trying to ram down people's throats without it ever being seen by the public?

  • Like, all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light, bad.

  • by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) on Saturday March 14, 2009 @01:20AM (#27190339)
    If the court is to decide on the acceptability of something they do (i.e., streaming), can the RIAA fight for a change of venue? I mean, you wouldn't want a Ten-Commandments-in-the-courtroom case to be decided in a courtroom where the Ten Commandments are on the wall, right? Usually, if there's a conflict of interest, the judge can just recuse him/herself, but that wouldn't work here. Can RIAA put up a straight-faced argument about changing venue (say, to a court they think might be more friendly anyway)?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by silanea (1241518)
      I don't think so (but hey, it's the US legal system; common sense does seldom apply). Using a certain common-place technology is vastly different from openly supporting a specific faith/school of thought. Nobody in their right mind would call a judge who handles a case about a car driver hitting a pedestrian biased just because he drove to the court house in his car.
      • Of course not, but they might if he'd been hit by one. The fact that this court records/streams its proceedings means that the judges on it see no problem with it. Given that, it might be tough to expect them to hear RIAA's argument that there IS a problem with it in quite as unbiased as a way as maybe they should, just like a judge who'd been hit by a car might not be completely impartial during a hit-and-run case. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with streaming court cases, generally speakin
        • by Dhalka226 (559740)

          I honestly don't think them streaming video is at all relevant. Courtrooms are open to the public, and often open to cameras -- unless there is a compelling reason that what is said in the courtroom needs to be kept secret from the public. Child (sex abuse) victims are one fairly common example of when judges typically don't believe the public needs to know.

          You're right that this court has already seemingly determined that there's nothing wrong with the actual act of streaming court arguments, as eviden

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            I honestly don't think them streaming video is at all relevant. Courtrooms are open to the public, and often open to cameras -- unless there is a compelling reason that what is said in the courtroom needs to be kept secret from the public.....

            I agree.

            You're right that this court has already seemingly determined that there's nothing wrong with the actual act of streaming court arguments, as evidenced by them doing so themselves.

            Correct.

            That doesn't mean they can't impartially hear arguments over whether or not there is something specific to this case that would deserve that protection.

            Correct.

            As far as changing venue, I'm pretty sure that's not an option for an appeal.

            Certainly not in this case. It might be if all of the judges were shareholders in one of the parties, or something like that.

            Changes of venue are for when they don't feel they can get a fair trial--and since they're the plaintiffs and brought suit in this particular jurisdiction themselves, I'd say that argument flies out the window pretty immediately. That said, this isn't a trial -- this is an appeal of a particular order made by the trial judge. The best I could see them doing is recusing themselves, but I've also never heard any precedent of an entire court recusing itself from a decision. It would be highly unlikely if it's even possible.

            Correct.

        • Of course not, but they might if he'd been hit by one. The fact that this court records/streams its proceedings means that the judges on it see no problem with it. Given that, it might be tough to expect them to hear RIAA's argument that there IS a problem with it in quite as unbiased as a way as maybe they should, just like a judge who'd been hit by a car might not be completely impartial during a hit-and-run case. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with streaming court cases, generally speaking, but this particular situation raises the rather interesting prospect of a venue change or something similar. Unless of course Ray says otherwise.

          I don't know what Ray thinks but I'll ask him. But I thinks there's as much chance of a 'change of venue' as a snowball in hell. The fact that a particular appellate court has indicated a certain view of the law would not constitute a ground for change of venue. That is what appellate courts are supposed to do, interpret the law.

          • by Ihmhi (1206036)

            I don't know what Ray thinks but I'll ask him.

            Waitasec, I thought this WAS Ray... unless...

            My God, you're dictating your Slashdot posts to your secretary. You magnificent bastard.

            • I don't know what Ray thinks but I'll ask him.

              Waitasec, I thought this WAS Ray... unless... My God, you're dictating your Slashdot posts to your secretary. You magnificent bastard.

              No nothing as cool as that. I was just trying to be funny -- i.e. as NYCL I'll go ask Ray what he thinks. Unfortunately, NYCL and Ray and Ray's secretary are all the same guy.

        • Court proceedings are not copyrighted. Thus, there is no conflict when the case is about streaming copyrighted material and the purported conflict is streaming uncopyrighted material.

          You might as well say that a trial about an infringing public reading of a copyrighted book would be prejudiced because the court allows people to talk!

  • by belmolis (702863) <{billposer} {at} {alum.mit.edu}> on Saturday March 14, 2009 @01:57AM (#27190483) Homepage

    I think we should give credit to the RIAA. They no doubt realize that exposing children to the persistent irrationality of their arguments might retard their cognitive growth and reduce their faith in the legal system. In opposing the broadcast, they're just thinking of the children.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by cheros (223479)

      I guess there's also the desire not to worry people by showing in real time what the result of such retarded cognitive development would be..

    • I think we should give credit to the RIAA. They no doubt realize that exposing children to the persistent irrationality of their arguments might retard their cognitive growth and reduce their faith in the legal system. In opposing the broadcast, they're just thinking of the children.

      Now that you put it that way, I guess you're right.

      See, I learned a valuable lesson here: there's some good in everybody, even RIAA lawyers.

  • by sinij (911942) on Saturday March 14, 2009 @02:53AM (#27190695) Journal
    Obviously RIAA lawyers are planning to spontaneously burst into song and dance and don't want people to pirate the show.
  • RIAA and associates are working desperately to form future law by way of precedent. In doing so, they have violated and/or challenged more civil law than most people can dream of violating in an entire LIFETIME. Further, they have no problem with violating criminal law. The end justifies the means, and that end is future law. To RIAA, trampling the protocol of some court or another is just another bump in the road. Dictating how a trial will be conducted will soon be a RIAA prerogative, unless those co
    • RIAA and associates are working desperately to form future law by way of precedent. In doing so, they have violated and/or challenged more civil law than most people can dream of violating in an entire LIFETIME. Further, they have no problem with violating criminal law. The end justifies the means, and that end is future law. To RIAA, trampling the protocol of some court or another is just another bump in the road. Dictating how a trial will be conducted will soon be a RIAA prerogative, unless those courts get together, and put RIAA in their place NOW.

      I agree wholeheartedly. I have been stunned by the passivity of so many judges to date. Only a minority have stood up to protect the integrity of the federal judicial process from the RIAA cheats.

  • U.S Supreme Court (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lxrslh (652069)
    denies broadcasting of its oral arguments, although sometimes they make them available later. Why should we be surprised that any lower court does the same?
  • by kimvette (919543) on Saturday March 14, 2009 @09:04AM (#27191865) Homepage Journal

    The RIAA's problem with streaming of this case is that some of their members' words and potentially "copyrighted content" will be copied to the interwebs without compensation, resulting in a loss of $4.37811 billion because they presume that those who download recordings of the hearings and case would otherwise purchase it on CD -- plus there is the fact that what would be downloaded is a raw and uncut version rather than the heavily cut-and-processed studio version. The court proceedings would be no different from typical concert bootlegs recorded right off the sound board; no artistic control and goofs might make it through. ;)

  • It is hard to imagine how a court which routinely streams its own oral arguments can rule that it is somehow inappropriate for similar oral arguments in the district court to be streamed as well."

    You must be new to this world.

    • It is hard to imagine how a court which routinely streams its own oral arguments can rule that it is somehow inappropriate for similar oral arguments in the district court to be streamed as well."

      You must be new to this world.

      Yes I am new to it, have only been here 61 years. Still finding part of it rather strange... the human part.

  • They are obviously afraid somebody will run their arguments through Microsoft Songsmith and post the result to Youtube, making them sound even more absurd than they already do! Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea... any volunteers to set RIAA lawyers to music?
  • Those responsible for sacking those who have been sacked, have just been sacked.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    That would ensure that nobody watches it!

  • by Elisanre (1108341) on Saturday March 14, 2009 @06:17PM (#27195915)
    The Pirate Bay trial didnt get streamed but a bunch of dedicated live-bloggers can make a huge impact. Ridiculous arguments and outright lies get dissected, laughed at and commented to the old-style media. (who acctualy picked it up for once)

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...