Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  SteveD, 21 Jan 2009 @ 2:16am

  
  

  Its definitely a risk... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CvvhDngERXo&feature=related

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

• 

  icepick314, 21 Jan 2009 @ 2:34am

  
  

  isn't the supposed broadcast supposed to be streamed live?
  
  how do you "remix" live broadcast?
  
  doesn't the case coverage be like any other coverage from Court TV?
  
  WTF, RIAA?!??!?!

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

• 

  inc, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:32am

  
  

  Re:

  you can capture a live broadcast then edit it then post it on youtube. this is what the RIAA doesn't want.

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

• 

  Haywood, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:54am

  
  

  Re: icepick314

  You obviously aren't one of the tech savvy propaganda-ists.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:54am

  
  

  Re:

  Um, you can record *any* broadcast. Streaming does not mean someone smart won't have a copy, or make one.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 11:02am

  
  

  Re:

  lol Talk about not thinking out a post first.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 3:02am

  
  

  out of contexte?

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 3:04am

  
  

  out of context?

  how about all head lines most of the press use to attract readers?
  
  are they going to request liberty of speech to be revoked?

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

• 

  AJ, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:24am

  
  

  real reason

  Don't you know the REAL reason? They don't want the world to see the broadcast of them getting their butts kicked in court -- ahh the humiliation!

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

• 

  eleete, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:35am

  
  

  In Context

  "some of these tech savvy propaganda-ists out there might remix the video and "manipulate" it to take RIAA arguments out of context."
  
  It's so much funnier when it's in context.

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

• 

  John Duncan Yoyo, 21 Jan 2009 @ 12:24pm

  
  

  Re: In Context

  >"some of these tech savvy propaganda-ists out there might >"remix the video and "manipulate" it to take RIAA arguments >out of context."
  
  
  The Remix -
  might it take some RIAA propaganda-ists to remix the video arguments of these tech savvy out there to manipulate and out of context?

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:13am

  
  

  I thought they where thinking about the children!
  
  or
  
  They did not want the copyrighted evidence illegal distributed on the internet.

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

• 

  Sheesh, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:22am

  
  

  As opposed to text

  Certainly, none of the geeks out there would dare to manipulate text of the proceedings.

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

• 

  ben, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:40am

  
  

  Official Copy

  I guess then the RIAA could put out an official copy of it, couldn't they? And who says the RIAA wouldn't alter that copy to their advantage?

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

• 

  Steve R. (profile), 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:48am

  
  

  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.

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

• 

  TDR, 21 Jan 2009 @ 6:56am

  
  

  Nice try, RIAA - but it won't fly.
  
  
  "We gladly feast on those who would subdue us."
  
  -the Addams family motto

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

• 

  Evil Mike, 21 Jan 2009 @ 7:46am

  
  

  Re:

  "Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc"

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

• 

  GeneralEmergency (profile), 21 Jan 2009 @ 9:26am

  
  

  Finish this joke, please...

  "How do you know an RIAA lawyer is lying?"

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

• 

  Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 21 Jan 2009 @ 9:34am

  
  

  Re: Finish this joke, please...

  They're talking!

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:10pm

  
  

  Re: Finish this joke, please...

  They're alive.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 11:51am

  
  

  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.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2009 @ 9:45am

  
  

  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'?

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

• 

  Mr Big Content, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:40pm

  
  

  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.

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

• 

  Brad, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:58pm

  
  

  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.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2009 @ 9:47am

  
  

  Re:

  I'll go ahead and seed it myself.
  
  If done right, I'd buy that.

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

Add Your Comment