RIAA Really Does Not Want Live Broadcast Of Hearing In Tenenbaum Case

from the what-are-you-afraid-of? dept

It seems the RIAA is, once again, showing its true colors. When Charlie Nesson asked the court in the Tenebaum case to allow a live internet broadcast of a hearing to dismiss the case, the RIAA protested. This was odd, on its face, since the RIAA has insisted from the beginning that the reason for the campaign is educational. That was the point made by Judge Gertner in granting the request -- and she even pointed out how odd it was that the RIAA didn't want that to happen.

It turns out that the RIAA is so against the idea that it's gone and asked an appeals court to overturn the ruling, which even has entertainment industry lawyers who support the lawsuit strategy questioning the RIAA's move here. Of course, it's not surprising to find out that the RIAA has been misleading (at best) about its intentions with these lawsuits, but it is rather amusing at how hard they're fighting this, even knowing how it shows their hypocrisy.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    The Natrix, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 4:00am

    Disingenuous Shitheads

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 4:20am

    RIAAs actions were to be expected, lets just hope the judges don't fall for there dirty tricks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael Whitetail, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 6:12am

    Newyorkcountrylawyer over on /. says in this article:
    "The RIAA has appealed the order entered several days ago allowing the January 22nd hearing in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum to be streamed over internet TV. Additionally, they've made a motion for a stay. I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order, (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge."
    If it is so improper to do this, wont they (the RIAA) get smacked down even harder by this judge and still be televised? Isn't this a no-win situation for them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 6:28am

    Leave them alone

    Remember, this is all about protecting the artist's 5% share of revenue. Their intentions are completely honorable!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rajio, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 6:29am

    har har

    I'll bet they'll try claiming that televising this will just give other people ideas to pirate stuff and reveal how to do it. (...as if)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 6:46am

    I seriously think they need to televise the remainder of this trial and any trials in the future for further review and scrutiny by the public forum (including large law schools).

    I would love to hear what other judges and lawyers personally think about the way the entertainment industry is conducting themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 7:22am

    RIAA is right.

    Their defense is copyrighted and the term "RIAA" is trademarked!!!

    yeah, they should run with that..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 9:10am

    RIAA: "We Really Don't Want To Broadcast our Hearing."

    Me: "But it's the first RIAA product I want to buy in years!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pete Austin, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 9:21am

    The court is proposing a *free* streamed download, so of course the RIAA are going to oppose it. This is anathema to them.

    For example the following quoted RIAA supporter: "We strongly support the music industry's effort to stop free downloading and file sharing. It is a matter of survival to our constituents"
    http://www.riaa.org/newsitem.php?id=85183A9C-28F4-19CE-BDE6-F48E206CE8A1

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 11:02am

    the 5%'ers

    "Remember, this is all about protecting the artist's 5% share of revenue. Their intentions are completely honorable!"

    Woah hold on! Where in the world of God and the angels did you get such a ludicrous figure as 5% for the artists from? Hold on there son! An artist typically sees 15-50 CENTS of a CD sale! Big names get more of course, but the vast majority see more like 2% or less. AND they have to pay back all costs FIRST before they get any profit. AND...from these lawsuits, they get almost NOTHING, the RIAA keeps it all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2009 @ 12:12pm

      Re: the 5%'ers

      You are right. I was way too generous with my estimate of 5%.

      So let's say 2%... before RIAA association fees of course.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:08am

    Seeing the RIAA being embarassed in front of a worldwide audience... priceless.

    *cue Rocky theme music*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This