In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was up to Judge Gertner whether to put the February 24th oral argument on hold, or to proceed with it without the internet television streaming.
The RIAA made a motion asking Judge Gertner to proceed.
Motion to proceed with hearing without streaming
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
Friday, February 20, 2009
RIAA asks Judge Gertner to go ahead with February 24th oral argument without streaming
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There is nothing in the 18 February Order of the Court of Appeals to suggest that the scheduled oral argument of the RIAA's petition is dependent upon the decision of the District Court to proceed without streaming. Indeed, given that the Court of Appeal's characterises the issues raised as 'important', it is likely that the two are now independent.
It is no surprise that the RIAA would wish to press ahead with the oral arguments without the streaming as they appear to think that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by appearing on screen. There is no mention yet of a similar request to proceed to trial without streaming but I expect that to be a safe bet should they clear this first hurdle.
I see no pressure on the defendant to proceed without streaming and think it likely that we will see a counter motion that broadly says that as it was the plaintiff who felt the matter of streaming should first be decided by the Court of Appeals that the District Court should await the higher court's verdict on the issue as it has implications well beyond this case.
There may be a sense of unease by the plaintiff that even if their view prevails in this case that the Court of Appeals may subsequently rule against them and leave them wholly exposed to similar requests in other courts.
It is often best not to poke a sleeping dog.
Dave
From the RIAA perspective, proceeding without streaming is different how from upholding the motion?
Step 1. Convince trial court to hold the hearing.
Step 2. Convince appeals court the issue is moot, since trial court only agreed to video this one hearing.
Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary (whenever any trial court dares to allow videoing for any hearing whatsoever).
It's pretty obvious, as the jadeic points out, that the defendant needs the stay in place until the appeals court rules. Otherwise, no justice will be done.
Step 1. Convince trial court to hold the hearing.
Step 2. Convince appeals court the issue is moot, since trial court only agreed to video this one hearing.
Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary (whenever any trial court dares to allow videoing for any hearing whatsoever).
It's pretty obvious, as the jadeic points out, that the defendant needs the stay in place until the appeals court rules. Otherwise, no justice will be done.
Post a Comment