Harvard Prof.'s hearing against RIAA can't be streamed online The local rules of the land will keep the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) free from having their high-profile case against Joel Tenenbaum broadcast live over the internet, a federal appeals court in Boston has ruled. The First US Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked a trial judge from letting streaming coverage of the …
Maybe the Law has realised that it could be a good money spinner:
Charging people a fortune for lousy media and then refusing a refund on rejection is a good money spinner.
Inventing the obvious is a good money spinner - perhaps the law has realised if they copyright every development in law then anyone who benefits from a legal precedent has to pay those that set the precedent! Even allowing people to see how the law works should be charged for. I dont see why the legal business should be free of the spanners they throw in the works of every other.
"The RIAA thinks Nesson's request is a self-serving stunt to make the trial a media circus."
Cough! Splutter! Excuse me while I stitch my sides back together! Of course the **AA are above that sort of thing aren't they. They would never stitch up grannies who've never heard of the internet or try to get 12 year olds a criminal record for downloading public domain nursery rhymes, just to "raise a awareness" of them or their organisation, now would they?
I perfectly understand why a person prosecuting a case may not want to encourage penny-gallery attention DURING a trial, but video does not have to be broadcast immediately. A comprehensive video record should be made of all trials. There is no rational reason to prohibit camera or video use during a trial for use after a trial has concluded.
"The RIAA thinks Nesson's request is a self-serving stunt to make the trial a media circus."
Evidently The RIAA has little appreciation for what they call "Art". The Business Model of their membership is one self-serving stunt after another in an effort to create a media circus.
Try before you buy is a possible defence which could actually upset laws on a number of cases.
Take me ... I'll download a movie and if I like it, I'll buy it. If I think it is a laod of trash then I count myself fortunate that I haven't wasted my money and shelf space on a film that I hate.
Most recent purchases have been a couple of Edie Reader CD's, Kung-Fu Panda and Battlestar Galactica (the whole series; just waiting for the proper 20 episode series 4 to surface) among others
Recent failures were Wall-E and Pink Panther 2.
It is long time that the movie and music companies were actively legislatively stopped from being so greedy. I do believe that if people walk out of a film in a cinema up to half way through, that they should get a full refund if the product fails to live up the hype.
I'm not saying this without having my own irons in the fire. Some twit on Amazon wanted £60 for a copy of one of my books ... will I ever see anything from that? Nope. They've also dropped the price to £20 recently!!!
But the movie and music industry want more money from single works for much, much longer. They want an income for life for a bit of hard work; this is more than anyone else has got. Why should they be allowed to be so greedy?
String 'em up from the nearest yard arm I say. Hoist by their own petard.
Nah, as far as I am concerned, downloading is a realistic try before you buy option ... provided you can prove that you are, actually, buying what you like.
As much as I think the RIAA & MPAA are a bunch of cnuts, I can't really go for the whole "I download a film to see if I like it" argument. For music, yes, as you're far more likely to listen to the album over & over again, so there's an incentive to buy it (as long as you've got a conscience).
Unless you watch the film every few months, there's not a great incentive for you to go out and buy a DVD after watching a downloaded copy.
I downloaded a copy of Garmin's bluechart software as I wanted to see if it was any use for racing. They don't supply a trial version and I wasn't going to blow 150 quid on something that I'd never use. I then bought is as I use it every weekend, (I also don't like the idea of using out of date navigation charts).
Take 5 minutes to read the decision, its pretty obvious it was made based on the law as written. As much as one might dislike the RIAA/MPAA they are due the same rights in court as someone in any other case. No special treatment should be given.
With respect to the broadcasting/recording of court proceedings I think that a full video recording of all court proceedings for the purpose of record keeping would be a good idea. However, the broadcasting of these cases while they happen could lead to harm by way of influencing the jury. While a jury in the best case scenario would actively ignore (or report) any contact with the resulting media/external discussion of the case, in practicality it can sometimes be unavoidable.
Somehow a balance must be found between the right of the public to view the trial and the right of the parties involved to an impartial jury. I think recording the trial and then releasing it after completion is a fair compromise.
The court is obliged to be fair to both plaintiff and defendant. Favor the plaintiff and you get to many 'false' convictions. Favor the defendant and you get to many 'false' acquittals. So either can appeal a decision they think unfairly burdens their side. That being said, I don't see a logical way to argue that the overwhelming public interest in this trial is not best served by broadcasting the trial. And if it can be broadcast, it can be broadcast via peer-to-peer mechanisms.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
