RIAA, Tenenbaum, online TV appeal
p2pnet news view RIAA | P2P:- An expedited briefing schedule which will lead to a decision on whether or not Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA will be able to block the online telecast of oral arguments in Sony BMG Music v Tenenbaum has has been fixed by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with January 29 as the deadline for Tenenbaum’s opposing briefs and for any amicus curiae briefs for any third parties, says Recording Industry vs The People.
The RIAA has until February 2 for its response.
The appeals court left open the question of whether or not it’ll want oral argument, or will instead decide the RIAA’s petition on the papers.
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.”
No! Really? 
Here’s the text »»»
Petitioners in this mandamus action seek an order prohibiting the district Court from allowing a so-called ‘narrowcast’ over the Internet overhearing originally scheduled in the district Court on January 22, 2009. On January 20, 2009, the district judge temporarily stay to order by rescheduling the hearing for February 24, 2009. In light of the substantial and novel questions presented, the likelihood that they will recover in this and other settings, and the public interest involved, we will order expedited briefing as follows; note that all filings must be received in this Court and actually received by the petitioners/respondents on or before the date/time specified:
(a) respondents must answer the petition, and file any brief, on or before Thursday, January 29 at 3 p.m.;
(b) any reply brief must be filed on or before Monday, February 2 at 12 p.m.; and,
(c) any motion to file an Amicus brief, must be accompanied by the tendered Amicus brief, must be filed on or before Thursday, January 29 at 3 p.m.
We will decide, after briefing is completed, whether or not or argument will facilitate the decisional process.
Stay tuned.
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 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Sorry for the confusion with the last post.
IANAL and I got it wrong.
Apologies.
Cheers!
January 21st, 2009 at 11:41 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.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:32 am
Hopefully these parasites will lose their apeal so that all the crap they carry will be exposed even wider so we can bring the sale of recording to near zero.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
“Especially in a case where they know they have every chance of being ridiculed and embarrassed so thoroughly and completely.”
And rightful though!
Remember, according to http://joelfightsback.com/about-the-case/ joel back then offered them $500 but these greedy bastards wanted more, and now their master mouthpiece of lying reality distortion Cara “Worthless Duck” is even blaming professor nesson that the case is still going while it is only the fault of the greedy content cartel lawyers since they refused back them!
And now, the court of appeals will decide what could end up as a bees nest of follow up problems for them in further and/or other proceedings.
Imagine other poor guys attacked by those bastard lawyers will gain the courage from those events now and will say: 2009 – the year the public started fighting back seriously! In the hope that at least at december 31 2009 organised music might be history and artists and their fans will handle their relations without those obsolete parasitic middlemen!
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
P.S. Jon, can you check with prof nesson what is that about and if he can make available/send you a copy of the “letter” where he is threatened with a motion for sanctions for his motion to compel “the dentist with settlement authority for 4 colluding suppposed to be competitors” to his deposition?
“”letter” just received threatening me with sanctions for moving to compel matt oppenheim’s deposition ungefähr 16 Stunden ago from web”
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I wish the RIVTP author would offer some lay-person explanations of these things. Not just the executive summary, but some clue about the merits of these arguments.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
not being the RIvTPauthor but what is it Robert that you wanted to have explained in lay person terms?
What this actual hearing date is about or what do you mean with “these arguments”?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 am
I read the appeal and it just didn’t click with me. The arguments are that the judge’s authority is limited by some rule but some other body may or may not agree with a decision outside that authority. There was some point about only one company recording the proceedings, but there did not seem to be any explanation why that would be cause to forbid recording entirely.
So the part about the rules and the laws just doesn’t mean anything to me yet. And I feel generally ignorant about why a TV crew couldn’t just set up in the court room in the first place?
And what’s the overall context? Is this a stall tactic or is there some merit to the omgtvappeal?