Block TV cameras in Tenenbaum! – demands RIAA
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- The RIAA is desperately trying to block judge Nancy Gertner’s decision to allow oral arguments in Joel Tenenbaum vs the RIAA, starring Harvard professor Charles Nesson and his team of student lawyers in a courtroom special, to be televised live online.
That should come as a surprise.
After all, the avowed reason the Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG extortion unit is bringing all these lawsuits against innocent men, women, children and students across America, is to “educate” them into accepting the fallacies that sharing music with each other online is both illegal, and costing the corporate music industry millions of dollars in lost sales.
As Gertner herself said in her decision to allow the TV broadcast »»»
At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material.
Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities.
Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation
But No. They’re going blind trying to halt the proceedings.
In SONY BMG Music v Tenenbaum, “the RIAA has filed a ‘Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition’ with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to stop the televising of the January 22nd argument,” blogs Ray Beckerman in his Recording Industry vs The People.
‘Or’ is the operative (extremely interesting) word.
“In my experience it’s pretty bizarre to call it a writ of ‘mandamus or prohibition’,” he says, going on »»»
They apparently don’t know which it is.
Had they been paying attention in law school they would know that it is a writ of prohibition.
Bizarre is, however, what Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG are all about.
Who else would use an extortion unit to launch a six-year marketing campaign in which lawsuits against their own customers are the central feature?
Meanwhile, their key claim that files shared equal sales lost has just been ignominiously dumped by another US judge, James P. Jones.
The Big $ and RIAA will soon be whining and grizzling about that as well.
Meanwhile, it’ll be interesting to see what they have to say when the spurious ’sales lost’ ploy comes up during the oral proceedings after their bid to halt them fails.
The arguments will be heard at on January 22 and if you want to capture the RIAA live (so to speak 
) and in action, contact Courtroom View Network counsel Jonathan Sherman @ 202-237 9605.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition
Motion for expedited consideration or stay
Jon Newton – p2pnet
January , 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I’m not in a region where this is going to be broadcast.
Could someone perhaps upload it to Youtube, or Liveleak (Youtube might just receive a DMCA takedown or something), so the public can see what’s going on?
I don’t think televeised court proceedings are copyrighted anyway.
January 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I have no doubt there will be numerous uploads of this to YouTube.
I do have every doubt YouTube would even read a DMCA takedown request for something that is being given the status (by the court) of “public domain”, and is showing material that contains no material from the USA (where the DMCA only applies).
Even if we had something similar to their DMCA, such a takedown request would have to come from the very court that approved the transmission in the first place.
: )
January 17th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Put it on a P2PTV service, and then when it’s over, torrent it. Assuming that Reader is right about televised court hearings not being copyrighted, that would be the PERFECT way for RIAA to “‘educate’ the public!”
Except ::some group:: has already worked with ISPs to block P2P, cutting off my Joost and bittorrented Linux ISOs…
January 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
” Put it on a P2PTV service, and then when itâs over, torrent it. Assuming that Reader is right about televised court hearings not being copyrighted, that would be the PERFECT way for RIAA to ââeducateâ the public!â
That’s exactly what they are afraid of, and why they are fighting so hard to keep it from happening.
The mainstream media,they can control, prevent it from being seen.
On the internet, it is eternal, and will spread everywhere, and no one will be able to stop it.
Just like the filesharing they fear so much.
Nice.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:42 am
It’s called advertising, if the RIAA had of just said “OK”, no one would have been interested now would they.