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.
Filed Under: charles neeson, constitutionality, fines, joel tenenbaum, lawsuits, penalties
Comments on “RIAA Really Does Not Want Live Broadcast Of Hearing In Tenenbaum Case”
RIAAs actions were to be expected, lets just hope the judges don’t fall for there dirty tricks.
Newyorkcountrylawyer over on /. says in this article:
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?
Leave them alone
Remember, this is all about protecting the artist’s 5% share of revenue. Their intentions are completely honorable!
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)
Re: har har
or the RIAA’s brother will ask for an obscene amount of money in for the webcast.
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.
RIAA is right.
Their defense is copyrighted and the term “RIAA” is trademarked!!!
yeah, they should run with that..
RIAA: “We Really Don’t Want To Broadcast our Hearing.”
Me: “But it’s the first RIAA product I want to buy in years!”
Well played, sir.
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”
“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.
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.
Seeing the RIAA being embarassed in front of a worldwide audience… priceless.
*cue Rocky theme music*