RIAA – deathly afraid of being mocked
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- Here’s an interesting take on why the RIAA is doing its damnedest to kill the live online TV broadcast of oral arguments in the Joel Tanenbaum and the Harvard Law School vs the RIAA case.
Federal district court judge Nancy Gertner has said it’s okay for the Courtroom View Network to go a live on the Net at the hearing, now re-scheduled for February 24.
The Big 4’s RIAA filed a panicky emergency appeal, “arguing that a Webcast of court proceedings could prejudice it with the public,” says MediaPost.
“The organization contends that users might re-edit clips of court proceedings in a way that distorts the group’s positions.”
It would be impossible to distort things any more than the RIAA has done already.
But, “Even if the group is right and someone, somewhere, re-edits the Webcast to mock the RIAA, that’s not a valid reason to ban the Internet from the courtroom,” says Wendy Davis in the MediaPost story, going on »»»
If [the] RIAA feels it’s being portrayed inaccurately, the group’s remedy is to address that with the truth; if the group thinks clips have been taken out of context, it can post the video in its entirety on its own Web site.
Consider the wide array of events that are Webcast – everything from Obama’s inaugural speech this morning to Senate hearings to sports events – despite the possibility that users might create misleading remixes. If lawmakers and celebrities are subject to mashups, why not lawyers in a case that’s of enormous public interest?
Of course, the RIAA has made clear it doesn’t like publicity about these cases – except when it originates with them. In one recent case, the group asked a judge to deem defense lawyer Ray Beckerman ‘vexatious’ for posting publicly available court documents at his blog, Recording Industry vs. The People.
But the RIAA’s fear of publicity shouldn’t determine whether this case is broadcast online. Courts are presumptively open to the public, but practical considerations make it impossible for all but a few dozen people to watch hearings live.
That’s why Gertner’s order last week, authorizing the Webcast, made sense, says Davis, adding:
“If it’s upheld, it could pave the way for far more court proceedings to be available for public viewing – as they should be. The First Circuit should now uphold Gertner’s ruling.”
If you want to get in on this, contact Courtroom View Network counsel Jonathan Sherman @ 202-237 9605.
re-scheduled for February 24 – Tenebaum vs RIAA TV hearing adjourned, January 21, 2009
MediaPost – Keeping Justice Opaque: RIAA Wants Private Hearing, January 20, 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 21st, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Of course they don’t want their activities opened to wider public scrutiny. Especially in a case where they know they have every chance of being ridiculed and embarrassed so thoroughly and completely.
Their whole strategy relies on people not knowing and understanding what they are about and how. If the general public knew what was behind the sue em all campaign and how it is being conducted in the US the majors would almost certainly find their products being boycotted by far far more people across the globe.
The general public is a stupid beast, and is slow to wake, but when roused can move mountains. The RIAA know full well that what they are doing is morally wrong and motivated purely on building further walls around the outdated and socially backward copyright system. Once the global public also become fully aware of this the game is over for them, the money dries up and Canute finds once again that he cannot hold back the tide, even if he is king.
They fear the exposure to the light. So bring it to them, educate your friends and family, educate your teacher and students, show people what these people are about and how and allow them to make up their own minds about the solution, but get them involved in the debate even if they don’t hold the same views you do.