New twist in Tenenbaum v the RIAA
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- In Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenenbaum, Judge Gertner’s decision allowing a hearing to be televised stated:
[T]he Judicial Conference approved a resolution in March 1996 to strongly urge each circuit judicial council to adopt Conference policy banning cameras, and to abrogate any rules of court that conflict with that policy. See 929 F. Supp. 660; News Release: Judicial Conference Acts on Cameras in Court, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Mar. 12, 1996 (document # 720-14). To date, no circuit judicial council — including the First Circuit judicial council which binds this Court — has done so.(Emphasis supplied)
It now appears Judge Gertner may have been mistaken, and that she, the RIAA’s lawyers, Mr Tenenbaum’s lawyers, and all of the amici’s lawyers, were unaware of an order by the First Circuit Judicial Council which did in fact adopt the Conference’s recommendation.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has asked the parties to brief the legal effect of a 1996 order in which the Judicial Council apparently did adopt the suggestion of the Judicial Conference:
February 20, 2009, Order of US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Ray Beckerman – Recording Industry vs The People
February , 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.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:02 am
So no cameras in the court room?
Is this because of the OJ Simpson Trial Show on CNN?
But at least we have Twitter and the like, that’s still valuable right?
February 24th, 2009 at 11:14 am
interesting how the the RIAA lawyers can find a nearly 13 year old recommendation,
yet FORGOT to mention opposing precedent much more recent in the Thomas case.
The RIAA lawyers ARE going to get what they want, I was certain of that when the
cameras were first mentioned. It’s sickening.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“The RIAA lawyers ARE going to get what they want, I was certain of that when the
cameras were first mentioned. Itâs sickening.”
Yeah, ditto. The minute they got that month’s stay I knew it was game over for the cameras, regardless of all the arguments flying around the internet. I’m sure the lawyers knew about this the whole time and this delay was just a way to wear down the opposition and frustrate the public like us.
It’s+1 to the RIAA so far.
I bet they go and win the sodding case, now.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Indeed we will win this case. We are somewhat smarter than people give us credit for and we have the law on our side. We monitor p2pnet daily and it’s thanks to little sites like this that help us to stay one step ahead of the pirates that are stealing our artist’s livelyhoods.
In the end, artists will be rightfully compensated and everyone will be happy.
Stay tuned everyone.
Kieran Kapretzky
Legal Department
Recording Industry Association of America
February 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
^^
Nice one
Cheers!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Itâs always nice to know that The RIAA is worried enough about itâs public opinion that it has to take the time to monitor a small blog such as this one to keep track of it and the goings on here. What it says by the admission of being here, is that the RIAA is concerned and it is worrying to them, or they would not bother. Itâs tactic admission we and what we think matters.
Of course this is not the first time such an announcement has taken place. While it has been very rare, it is always nice to get confirmation by admission.
So what I got to say Jon, is keep it up. This site and the few rare other ones that cover these topics is of great concern to them or they would not be here monitoring this. Nothing like a pat on the back with indirect and round-a-bout encouragement is there? You just got it with the post above.
However it is very odd to hear this mention of artists and their compensation. Perhaps Kieran could tell us why the artists arenât getting paid or are paid next to nothing for digital sales? We all know they are compensated for cd and tape sales. With the future of the industry going digital, why is this little item left out when the proclaimation is âfor the artistâ? Looks to me on the face of it like the future is rob the rest of the artists due rather than defend their compensation. Sounds to me like the real thief should take a long hard look in the mirror. Errr, why is it exactly that artists are charged for packaging on digital downloads? Never did figure that one out.
I canât think of too much I am interested in put out by the major labels. Most of what I care for, Iâve had ages to buy. Itâs not exactly like Jimi Hendrix is putting out any more new tunez now is it? Remixes, remasters, none of that is too important any more as there just isnât anything new heâs going to be putting out since he has been dead all these years. The newer stuff just doesnât have any appeal at all to me.
How can Canadian downloaders be stealing? Theyâve paid for the right with the buying of the blank recording media. Or did I miss something here?
*Sits back to laugh knowing this post wonât be touched with a ten foot pole. The silence will be deafening I have no doubt in my mind.*
The guyâs a troll. I left the comment because itâs a bit more imaginative than usual, but you wonât be seeing Kieran again (unless Iâm not around to delete him
). Cheers! And thanks 
) – Jon)
February 24th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Maybe all the digital download revenues went into lawyer fees, lobbyist fees, ‘donations’ to Congress personnel, donations to judges/jurors (Just guessing, not accusing, yet)?
The US does not have a media levy and the US is where the trials against individuals are taking place. Maybe the levy is the only reason we are not seeing individuals sued in Canada? Or maybe the House of Commons has not been bought yet by lobbyists to the point where ridiculous laws can be pushed through (seriously, how can anyone read a Bill when you have dollars in front of your eyes).
February 24th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@RW…
The “Kapretzky” post was joke, I’m sure.
: )
February 24th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Even if the RIAA wins this case, there is still that impending joy that the RIAA will eventually be exposed for the assholes they are and the need to find real jobs instead of claiming they are for the artists when such claims is utter bullshit.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
So now you are deleting any post you don’t like! What happened to that freedom of speech that you shoot your mouth off so much about?
February 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
^^ As I say here http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14822 âFreedom of speech doesnât ⦠include allowing fools free rein.â
Also have a look here – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18398
End of discussion.
Cheers!
February 26th, 2009 at 6:45 am
freedom of speech means that jon does not hinder guys like you to write stuff he considers stupid or spamming inflamatory or anyway welse nasty ON YOUR OWN place.
FOS does not mean he must allow such shit on HIS place!
Stupid idiots everywhere!