RSS
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...
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: icepick314
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
out of contexte?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
out of context?
are they going to request liberty of speech to be revoked?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
real reason
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
In Context
It's so much funnier when it's in context.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In 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 ]
or
They did not want the copyrighted evidence illegal distributed on the internet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
As opposed to text
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Official Copy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Entitled to the Court Proceedings
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 ]
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us."
-the Addams family motto
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Finish this joke, please...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finish this joke, please...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finish this joke, please...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
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 ]
Not The Same Thing At All
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
If done right, I'd buy that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment