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: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “RIAA Really Does Not Want Live Broadcast Of Hearing In Tenenbaum Case”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Michael Whitetail says:

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?

Pete Austin says:

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”

RD says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...