Friday, January 16, 2009

RIAA "appeals" from order allowing hearing to be televised in SONY BMG Music v. Entertainment

In SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has filed a notice of appeal from the Court's interlocutory order allowing the January 22nd oral argument to be televised over the internet.

Additionally, it has filed a motion for stay addressed to Judge Gertner.

Notice of appeal
District Court Motion for Stay

[Ed. note. I am not familiar with the procedure the RIAA employed. As far as I know, they were not allowed to file a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order. If anyone out there has any contrary information for me, I would be pleased to hear it. I gather from their papers that they are also filing a writ of prohibition in the First Circuit, but I haven't seen it, and I don't understand the filing of the notice of appeal. -R.B.]

Update 1/17/09, 12:40 PM EST: See also "RIAA Files Writ of "Mandamus or Prohibition" with 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum".


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


Anonymous said...

Maybe they should hold the hearing in the evening after the sun goes down so that the vampires can suck as much blood as they need under veil of darkness. Or would that be past their bed times? I wonder if the Judge will find their objection “curious”.

Anonymous said...

Amazing. What exactly are they afraid of. The Judges finding in favor of narrow casting was very well reasoned, noting that the RIAA has explicitly claimed that educating the public was a primary goal of the legal campaign. The Judge noted that the hearing will only involve lawyers making legal arguments, so there are no privacy issues to consider. And narrowcastng the proceedings in no way affects the RIAA's legitimate legal arguments, so one wonders on what basis they appeal? The "we are never wrong" argument? Or is this just another procedural move to slow down the process and cost the defendant large amounts of time and money--even a free defense still has costs.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like they are desperate now to keep this thing as much under wraps as they can. I can only hope that they get laughed at for their audacity to call Judge Gertner "wrong" with their appeal.

Also, what sources do they cite for not allowing this? As far as I can see from these documents, they are almost whining because they didn't get their way. Well all I have to say to these punks is "Tough, follow the law and stop trying to force. Times change so get over it."

What I would give to be Judge Gertner for a day and use every, and I mean every, judicial authority to cause these lawyers some serious grief.

Being as she is one of the few judges that is willing to stand up to their BS, I hope she sees through their crap and slaps them hard for this.

raybeckerman said...

I guess it is frightening to them that the world should see what they are doing.

raybeckerman said...

If I made my living the way they do, I'd be ashamed, too.

Anonymous said...

What's especially interesting is when a veteran litigator like ray has to raise his eyebrows and note " I am not familiar with the procedure the RIAA employed. As far as I know, they were not allowed to file a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order.," which seems to suggest that what the RIAA is trying to do may not even legal under these exact circumstances. Either way, the RIAA never lets something like legal merit affect their court cases or legal strategy, IMO>

Anonymous said...

Shane: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. (Robert J. Hanlon)

Alter_Fritz said...

well, I have not studied medicine with a special topic of mentally illnesses, but given their obsession with appeals lately I non the less come to the conclusion:

They have gone crazy!

since evenn ray does not understand what their move in tenenbaum is, I can not say anything to this here, but the other appeal by RIAA-Tim is "curious"!
The judge says the defendant has the right to defend herself with a certain theory, and these plaintiffs suffering from delusion of omnipotention (judge jury executioner in one entity named HRO's RIAA lawyer) say she has not!
How "curious" is that?

At least now we know why they are selfreportedly not doing the law thingy with due process, courts, judges and all this stuff in "new cases" anymore.
according to their logic they are right, everyone else is wrong, judges are mean since they don't play by RIAA rules anymore and so on.

Can't a judge order that Tim and Co are to be instututionalised and have their saneness checked?

Anonymous said...

Seeing as there is no reference to this development on the Joelfightsback site as of this time,it is beginning to look like the entire defense strategy might be simply a PR stunt to promote Prof. Nesson's reputation on the eve of retirement. You know the style I mean. Hugely promote and crow about all the things that go your way but sweep the negative under the carpet. Isn't that how they all do it when they write their memoirs? However, I will keep an open mind and continue watching.

derivative said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
derivative said...

Yet more delaying tactics from the RIAA.

The defense and the court should not put up with it. Even if, by some miracle, there is some merit to the plaintiff's argument against video cameras, that is not a valid reason to slow the trial down.

Since the cameras are already in place, the filming should not disrupt the courtroom. It seems that the most the judge would need to do is to order that the filming can take place, but that the film cannot actually be broadcast until such time as the appeals court rules in the defendant's favor.

In fact, were I the defendant, I think I should take this as an opportunity to point out to the judge that this is a solution which can be usefully applied to ALL the hearings. Once necessary protections are put into place to insure that the tapes won't be broadcast until the court orders that they can be, these same protections can be applied to the whole case -- tape all the hearings and then sort out later what should be redacted.

Anonymous said...


Oh no you can't be serious! Can you??? Imagine the problems that would cause the RIAA when they can't keep track of which video recording goes with which hearing? Oh my, the pandemonium that would cause the poor old RIAA.

(heavy sarcasm included in the above post)