RIAA Explanation For Not Wanting Court Broadcast: Those Geeks Might Remix It

from the context-is-king dept

We’ve already discussed how badly the RIAA does not want the pretrial hearings in the Tenenbaum case to be broadcast — as was requested by Tenenbaum’s lawyers, and approved by the judge in the case. However, the reasoning from the RIAA is pretty laughable. Apparently, it’s afraid that (gasp!) some of these tech savvy propaganda-ists out there might remix the video and “manipulate” it to take RIAA arguments out of context. Of course, in saying so, the RIAA has now pretty much guaranteed that’s what will happen, but… that still shouldn’t matter. We know the RIAA is against the whole concept of remixing, but we thought that was a copyright issue, not one where they actually think that such remixes are universally taken as fact. I wonder if the folks at the RIAA think that things like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are serious news programs rather than satire…

Filed Under: ,
Companies: riaa

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 Explanation For Not Wanting Court Broadcast: Those Geeks Might Remix It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Steve R. (profile) says:

Public Entitled to the Court Proceedings

It seems that the discussion is overlooking the issue that court proceedings in most cases are PUBLIC. (see note below) Consequently the RIAA is attempting to squelch free speech.

Though focusing on REMIX speaks of the absurdity of the RIAA position it leaves us “stuck” with looking at this from a copyright issue, that clearly does not apply. We need to take a more aggressive stance by saying that the RIAA is attempting to reduce our rights to participate (by listening) in an open court proceeding.

In the WIRED article In Internet First, RIAA File Sharing Hearing to Be Webcast David Kravets wrote: “The ruling is groundbreaking. Federal trial courts rarely, if ever, permit still pictures or live feeds from their courtrooms, though appeals courts are more open. Most states allow some type of photography, and vest the decision exclusively with the judge presiding over the case.” So there is some “maneuvering room” for the RIAA. Nevertheless, here we have an organization that wants ethical behavior on the consumers part demanding that it has a right to squelch freedom of speech, a fundamental right that we are entitled too. Very hypocritical.

Anonymous Coward says:

To those euphoric few who may view this as a victory of sorts, you have obviously never sat in a court as either counsel or observer. Motion proceedings are as enjoyable to watch as it feels to repeatedly stick your hand with an ice pick.

After the “OJ” debacle some years ago, I well understand why the overwhelming majority of judges give a resounding thumbs down to cameras in the courtroom.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I well understand why the overwhelming majority of judges give a resounding thumbs down

Uhm… why? Because no one wants to watch them? As noted above, these are public proceeedings. why should those who want to witness them be denied access because others find it less-than-enjoyable. I, for one, look forward to seeing this hearing because i’m honestly interested in the case, not because I’m looking to be entertained.

Related: can a hand motion really ‘resound’?

Mr Big Content says:

Not The Same Thing At All

I can see where they’re coming from. Programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are legitimately-licensed programs, with an officially-accredited sense of humour. Whereas release stuff like this on the Internet, and any Tom, Dick and Harry, with who knows what idea of a joke, might do anything they like with it. I mean, have you seen some of the things people find funny, when they’re left to themselves? It’s obvious you can’t have that. Satire needs to be carefully managed.

Brad says:

I fully plan to remix it, but onto my next Trance CD. I’ll play the arguments, in their entirety, on my tracks. I’ll just put a nice back beat behind it. I’ll call it “Music Wants to Own You” and I’ll go ahead and seed it myself.

Can I get in trouble for seeding my own content? I’m betting my ISP won’t know the difference.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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 »