Friday, January 30, 2009

14 news groups, including Associated Press and New York Times, file amicus curiae brief in opposition to RIAA petition

In SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, a group of 14 news organizations, including the Associated Press and the New York Times, have filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the RIAA's petition to prevent internet streaming of the upcoming oral argument.

The other news organizations joining in the brief were Courtroom Television Network, Dow Jones & Co., Gannett Co. Inc., The Hearst Corp., Incisive Media, National Public Radio, NBC Universal Inc., Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The E.W. Scripps Co., Tribune Co., and Washington Post Digital.

NBC Universal, one of the amici, is an affiliate of UMG Recordings, one of the plaintiffs.

Amicus Curiae Brief of Associated Press, New York Times, Courtroom Television Network, Dow Jones & Co., Gannett Co. Inc., The Hearst Corp., Incisive Media, National Public Radio, NBC Universal Inc., Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The E.W. Scripps Co., Tribune Co., and Washington Post Digital

[Thanks to Jon Newton at p2pnet.net, BNA Internet Legal News by Michael Geist, and The Associated Press for bringing this to my attention, to Ben Sheffner for firsts making the briefs available online, and to Alter_Fritz for alerting me to the online briefs.]

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net
Associated Press
Slashdot




Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

This man agrees with the arguments in favor of a full live webcast as the best protection against inaccurate and/or slanted reporting of this case. Any reasonable plaintiffs would certain agree with that rationale.

He next expects the RIAA to advance the claim that showing their lawyers in court puts said lawyers in danger from angry citizens.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Alter_Fritz said...

He might be a copy"right" troll, but headtip non the less: If you trust Ben as a source for genuine courtpapers, he has put up the pdf's of amici and respondent
(and of course in good tradition of Mr. Gabriel's foreseeing classification of the scope of HIS blog he pokes fun at it in a comment)

Amici:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresonybmgetal/09-1090AmicusCuriaeBrief.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11512949/Press-Amicus-Curiae-Brief
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11513550/CVN-Amicus-Brief

Respondent:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11530286/Brief-of-Respondent-Joel-Tenenbaum

Poking comment:
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/01/tenenbaum-files-first-circuit-brief-on.html

Ray Beckerman said...

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of interesting that NBC Universal, one of the amici, is an affiliate of UMG Recordings, one of the plaintiffs?

Ray Beckerman said...

Anybody thinking what I'm thinking? That Timothy Reynolds and Eve Burton are over their heads here?

They're used to litigating against kids, welfare mothers, homeless people, and other defenseless people. They don't have a clue what to do when they get a brief like the briefs they're getting here.

Anonymous said...

" Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of interesting that NBC Universal, one of the amici, is an affiliate of UMG Recordings, one of the plaintiffs? "

Not at all.
I've always been of the belief that this is one
of the reasons the RIAA news gets a pass
without the usual fact checking from all
of the major news outlets, ( all with related music companies ).

If the RIAA lawyers look like fools on
public camera, then the news organizations
HAVE to start fact checking or appear even
more biased then they already are.

" Anybody thinking what I'm thinking? That Timothy Reynolds and Eve Burton are over their heads here? "

Oh yeah.
If they would have just quietly agreed to
the camera stream, they would have
avoided dragging their media friends
into the fray, forcing them to choose a
side.

They stepped in it big and are panicking ... big.

Dreddsnik

Anonymous said...

How long until plaintiffs bail on the case? I can't imagine they really want to continue on this one. -jj

Anonymous said...

NBC Universal is a clear case of "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing." The GE integration of NBC never went all that far. NBC retains its own corporate identity, and is kept isolated from the rest of GE. The isolation fuels constant rumors (25 years and counting) that GE plans to sell. The Universal acquisition is just as isolated, so the idea that NBC and Universal would come in on opposite sides of the argument, despite being the same goshdarned company, doesn't surprise me in the least.

Alter_Fritz said...

anon @ January 31, 2009 10:03:00 AM EST

They can't!
Even if they do and offer Joel 2 Million in compensation (together witha NDA agreement and all that of course!)
Prof. Nesson and his students have counterclaims in the pipe (that one allowing to stand seperately from RIAA's claim is one of the points this purely procedural hearing is sheduled for).
And he is working pro bono.
While it might be desirable (and getting 2 million from evil4 looks desireable indeed) I guess he will not risk (allegedly) losing his face (in case they would accept a towel trowing by RIAA) that "the interwebs" will speak about the harvard guys/gal and Nesson as buyable cowards that retreat from their fight for the betterment of society when they just be greased good enough.
So both sides seems to be unable to bail out now without losing their face.
And that the "well known and respected" guys can only lose no matter what makes it even more interesting I say.
They brought it upon themself when they started suing little girls, but they definetly finished themself when they attacked those beloved laserprinters!
Geeks might be only slightly sympathic to the pain 12 year and younger (Kylee) girls are put throu by those evil content guys, but tell a geek his techgear [here *.edu laserprinters] gets attacked and you poke a bees nest as organised content you could have never imagined! ;-)

--
A_F

Shane said...

"Anybody thinking what I'm thinking? That Timothy Reynolds and Eve Burton are over their heads here?"

Oh, yes. I thought that after reading just the **first** amicus curiae brief, the one from EFF, but after reading the second and the ***third,** the the stunning stupidity of the RIAA's petition glowed with nuclear incandescence. The RIAA was too wrapped up in their single minded litigation bludgeoning campaign to even consider that their ridiculous petition would garner even more attention to the up coming hearing.

Copyrights & Campaigns said...

"Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of interesting that NBC Universal, one of the amici, is an affiliate of UMG Recordings, one of the plaintiffs?"

It might be interesting if true, but it's false. NBC Universal is *not* an affiliate of UMG. The corporate history is a bit complicated, but my understanding is that when NBC and Vivendi Universal combined in 2004 to create NBC Universal, UMG did not become part of NBC Universal. I believe UMG is still wholly owned by Vivendi; it is not controlled by NBCU.

Ray Beckerman said...

Dear C&C

Both are owned, at least in part, by Vivendi/Universal.

That makes them affiliates.

Ray Beckerman said...

UMG is owned by Vivendi Universal.

NBC Universal is owned by Vivendi Universal and GE.

Anonymous said...

CC " It might be interesting if true, but it's false. NBC Universal is *not* an affiliate of UMG. "

RB " UMG is owned by Vivendi Universal.

NBC Universal is owned by Vivendi Universal and GE. "


CC - sound of crickets -

Someone here fact checks just like the
RIAA lawyers do, and it's not RB

Dreddsnik

Ray Beckerman said...

I've come to the conclusion that C&C is just trolling.

I just rejected a post of his in which he continues to attempt to redefine the term corporate "affiliate", which has a well settled meaning.

Also I find offensive the way he has deliberately attempted to misrepresent the content of my post about Judge Gertner's continued signing of default judgments, and then to continue arguing against a statement I never made.

Unless he cleans up his act his posts will no longer be welcome here.

Anonymous said...

but...but...but...educating the public about the law runs against the interests of the RIAA! sadly, so does common sense. I CAN'T WAIT to watch this hearing, myself.

And, I too find it interesting that the other arms of Big Media are wrestling with the RIAA. Not a sympathetic ear to be found! I would not have predicted this turn, it gives me more faith in the media, for sure.

lost in thought