  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | WTF? Scared someone might copy it? 
Scared they are going to lose and it get plastered all over the net? 
Edit it to make them look bad? ROFL!!! Got Mirror fools?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
 | | | Re: WTF? Scared their real tactics might influence a jury.
I would think ANY juror they find that has never listened to music, never been on the internet, never seen a portable music player would be hard pressed. Or deaf, dumb and blind. Which is EXACTLY what RIAA wants!
RIAA=intimidation=extortion=terrorists!
--
Weeeeeeee! | |
|
|
approval from:
dadkins 
| said by dadkins:Scared someone might copy it? Scared they are going to lose and it get plastered all over the net? Edit it to make them look bad? ROFL!!! Got Mirror fools? Nah, Scared it will reach a bigger audience, more people want hear it. The icing on the cake is..its free.
It will be more popular, a bigger hit than any of the garbage elevator music they sell using RIAA's current methods.
One is: Force people into purchasing junk my making illegal threats to sue so people cave in to their demands.
the other: Bankrupt your fans who purchase your junk music by dragging them into a court of law and dicking them around for months
Hope they press this into a cd and sell it, let it be ripped and allow it to be shared. Then we can compare record sales and profit's against the RIAA's claims about file sharing. | |
|
|  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | It's like sunlight to a vampire. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | how could any outcome of the broadcast ruin a group who has a lower approvial rating then the former president.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |  Them? Fear a bad reputation?
--
--20/20 FIOS ~ 19.6D--23.8U-- | |
|
| | | Re: Them? Fear a bad reputation? said by destroyah:This story just made my day. I could not for the life of me stop laughing. Same here!
--
... | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  No Federal trial has ever been streamed live
»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/0···l-c.html
U.S. District Judge court Nancy Gertner agreed with the RIAA that the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals should review her precedent-setting ruling, which would allow the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University to livecast the hearing.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
|  POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live said by Linklist:No Federal trial has ever been streamed live and I don't blame the RIAA for not wanting to be the 1st. Let someone else be the guinea pig. And prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, no black man was ever free, as well as prior to 1920 no female ever voted. Yunno, all change isn't bad....oh wait. I forgot whom I'm addressing. You'd probably love it if the U.S. still had black slaves and disenfranchised females.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
| |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live said by POB:And prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, no black man was ever free ... Not true at all. There were many areas in the USA in which slavery was illegal prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Furthermore, the Proclamation itself did not free any slaves, as it was directed only towards the southern states that had seceded, which did not recognize the Proclamation. It did not free any slaves in the northern states which allowed slavery. These states were Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri.
said by POB:... as well as prior to 1920 no female ever voted. Wyoming had allowed women's suffrage since 1869.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live Or when the person looking to give B.S. to the one or two exceptions out of the norm.... It's like saying I know people who live in poverty and managed to rise above it. Sure, this does happen, but the ODDS one stays in that situation FAR OUTWEIGH the rising above. As per slavery, there were free slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. They were given papers that deemed them "Free Blacks". However, there were FAR MORE slaves than there were Free ones. So while not 100 percent accurate, his stance gets the point across. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live thats rights...why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Since theres no precedent, does this mean I can now drop a lawsuit having cities cease and desist using cameras at intersections for the sole purpose of revenue gaining?
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live Facts? You mean exceptions to the GENERAL RULE. On your basis, whenever an exception exists, the forefront is no longer true. Taking your statement one step further basically means that the statistical anomalies serve as the norm. Sigh.
Second, what the hell does your example have to do with anything? Precedence is set by prior legislation and ruling. Where none exist, a trend is set when cases are heard. Ie, if none exist, the judge making his or her first ruling sets the tone. Once again, this DOES NOT mean this tone has to be followed by others. Law is an opinion, not fact. History, on the other hand is concrete. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live If precedence is set by prior legislation...then that makes it law. Therefore...law is fact, not opinion. And while history may be concrete, history is full of people that chose, as you say, not to follow those tones. Does that make them right, No!
You seem to be picking and choosing which opinions, or laws, that you want to conform to. If everyone did that we'd have anarchy.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live Law IS NOT FACT. Law is opinion and changes with various rulings and time. What one society deems as law, might be modified or rejected by another. To further complicate law, what a society follows changes gradually over time. Hence, Law is something that is ever metamorphosing into new territory. Even law ruled as supreme are not without changes. So therefore, law is neither fact or concrete. It is merely an opinion that we follow until such time society deems new guidelines necessary. Therefore, your basis for reason here is pure fallacy and conjured crap.
Once again, History on the other hand is fact, though with bias. History is written by the victor, but that is true of anything. One who wins usually slants things towards making themselves look good. It does not mean that what they wrote cannot be verified, it just means its best to compare with other source,s to get a true tell tale picture.
Now back to my argument, you need to take reading 101. I never said what the guy stated was fact. I said it was MOSTLY CORRECT which stands to be accurate in terms of his analogy. While there were SOME free blacks, they were the exception to the rule. | |
|
| | | |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the RIAA has a weak case and uses illegal data gathering tactics. they dont want all this broadcast live, they want to make sure the only thing the public sees is the Sanitized for Media version.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | I see no difference between the live feed of this pretrial hearing and the streaming of Congress or is the RIAA asking that the press and spectators be excluded from attendance and the hearing be held in "closed court"? In both cases the proceedings are being make available for viewing to whoever wants to watch. | |
|
|  fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| said by Linklist:No Federal trial has ever been streamed live and I don't blame the RIAA for not wanting to be the 1st. Let someone else be the guinea pig. No trial was ever televised until television was invented, either. Once the technology was there it began to happen, as did televising of sessions of Congress.
The RIAA isn't worried about technology, or about someone editing the content. They're worried about looking like horse's asses to a big, live audience.
--
goodbye dad | |
|
| | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live said by fatness:said by Linklist:No Federal trial has ever been streamed live and I don't blame the RIAA for not wanting to be the 1st. Let someone else be the guinea pig. No trial was ever televised until television was invented, either. Once the technology was there it began to happen, as did televising of sessions of Congress. The RIAA isn't worried about technology, or about someone editing the content. They're worried about looking like horse's asses to a big, live audience. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner, folks! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | | said by fatness:The RIAA isn't worried about technology, or about someone editing the content. They're worried about looking like horse's asses to a big, live audience. Why must you insult horses' asses? | |
|
| | | And without fail, the corporate apologist comes in and tries to spin things away from the real issue.
And I bet no criminals want their trials on TV either.
 | |
|
| | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live If your bet is correct, and I think that it is, then the defendant, who apparently wants the proceedings televised, is not a criminal and the RIAA who does not want it televised must be the criminal. | |
|
| | |  TomClancyFreedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live Yeah, I think that is what he was implying. I don't know why you have to repeat it. I guess if it helps you understand it better then it's OK. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by baj475:If your bet is correct, and I think that it is, then the defendant, who apparently wants the proceedings televised, is not a criminal and the RIAA who does not want it televised must be the criminal. Exactly.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Linklist:No Federal trial has ever been streamed live and I don't blame the RIAA for not wanting to be the 1st. Let someone else be the guinea pig. » blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/0···l-c.htmlU.S. District Judge court Nancy Gertner agreed with the RIAA that the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals should review her precedent-setting ruling, which would allow the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University to livecast the hearing. And the conflict of interest is obvious:
The webcast, if allowed to go forward, would be hosted by the Harvard Berkman Center For Internet And Society -- which was founded by Tenenbaum's lawyer, professor Charles Nesson.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | |
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Well, the RIAA is free to use their MPAA cronies to stream the video as well. It doesn't HAVE to be one sided if they don't want to. | |
|
| | | None have been broadcasted on tv? Because they are the same thing. Internet broadcasting opens the door for every trial to be broadcasted without a national network getting involved. The same rules for allowing tv cameras should apply to allowing web cams. | |
|
| | | You and yours fear change - too bad.
It's coming....
--
... | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i kinda wonder why they even bother with this, even if they win they will never see any of this money.
also why is it 1 million and not the retail value of the music which at the time of the crime would have been 99 cents a track using itunes prices.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | I think the point is however all trials are matters of public record. Therefore there shouldn't be a problem to recording them in any way possible--- if that means video, audio, written text, dictation, whatever.
To claim "The feed might be edited and used against us" is really just saying "We know we're being assholes and we'll look like jerks."
Too bad, it's a public proceeding.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | ironic LOL, the recording industry does not want to be recorded. | |
|
| | | Re: ironic said by hoyleysox:LOL, the recording industry does not want to be recorded. Oh the irony ROFL | |
|
| | But, their stated purpose was to EDUCATE Didn't the RIAA argue that the purpose of the lawsuits was to EDUCATE the public? I mean, that's what they originally told the judge. If they want to educate the 'tech-savy' public (i.e. downloaders), then by definition, wouldn't this be the best way to publicize the evils of downloading? Oh, wait, unless, of course, they have no legal standing with their lawsuits, and they are terrified that the public finds out. The **AssAsses only rule through ignorance and fear. A lot like the Bush Regime. Before bush, we didn't have the US Gestapho, and life was good. Bush, also, feared the educated public, because he and the anti-christ (cheney), didn't have a LEGAL leg to stand on, just like the RIAA.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
|
|  IT GuyOw, My BallsPremium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM | Re: But, their stated purpose was to EDUCATE said by karlmarx:Before bush, we didn't have the US Gestapho, and life was good. Um... Yeah we did, his name was Sen. Joe McCarthy.
But getting back to the point-at-hand, who does RIAA think they are kidding? I educate my clients all the time about the shady tactics of RIAA. I'm all for fair use and unfortunately, RIAA's restriction of that is leading the (computer)ignorant masses to download "free" music, which is actually nasty malware that tricks them into buying their "virus scanner" to remove infections that aren't there. I've dealt with it twice this week. So, RIAA is a security and financial threat too! LOL! Did that even make sense? Sorry, it's been a long day. | |
|
| |  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: But, their stated purpose was to EDUCATE said by IT Guy:said by karlmarx:Before bush, we didn't have the US Gestapho, and life was good. Um... Yeah we did, his name was Sen. Joe McCarthy. One man is an organization? Really.
GESTAPO: GEheime STAatsPOlizei
So "Tail-Gunner Joe" was an entire secret state organization? He was more of a latter day witch hunter than anything else.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | IT GuyOw, My BallsPremium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM | Re: But, their stated purpose was to EDUCATE SENATOR Joe McCarthy... You don't think he could have accomplished all he did without some support, do you? 
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck | |
|
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: But, their stated purpose was to EDUCATE But your remarks suggest that you think he did it all himself. Or that he ran the show. He was just a tool. The sad think is, your comment deflects attention away from the source of the issue.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Heh Why would the RIAA ever want to do anything that is new, different, forward thinking, or fresh?
Besides, everyone knows that the RIAA is not really doing this for "educational purposes" as they have stated in the past. They are really doing this to protect their dying business model.
You really think they want people to see the truth? | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | $1M?!? Seriously, they should've said "you now owe us $150 for sharing the songs, to cover the royalties for the people wo downloaded from you" and had done with it. Extortion? Yes, but t wouldn't have ended up like this... | |
|
TomClancyFreedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | sweet... I'll be all over this broadcast, even if I have to call in sick.
--
Freedom isn't free! | |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | BS They don't want people to get educated to what the RIAA has been up to.
RIAA is Anti-Education.
Like the time they sent their PR into schools trying to brainwash the kids. | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·CenturyLink
| Blattella germanica Riaacea
Blattella germanica Riaacea var Scumbagum of various ages. |
| |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Statements Taken Out of Context? Is it that much more difficult to edit and make changes to a court transcript of the hearing and plaster these words all over the blogosphere? I don't even have to be remotely tech-savvy to pull out excerpts that would negatively impact the RIAA. | |
|
| | They're worried about editing? Wouldn't it be easier to edit a text transcript than edit a video?
"Petitioners are concerned that ...... the broadcast ...... will ...... s..h..o..w ...... t..h..e ...... t..r..ut..h. ...... Such an outcome can only do damage to Petitioner's case."
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
| | WTF? Man we need to change the law. Seven songs uploaded and you can get a penalty of up to $1 million?
Seriously even if they win he can just declare bankruptcy and they get nothing. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | Thanks, RIAA I haven't been able to get a smirk off my face or stop laughing since I read this headline!
Not only should it be webcast live, I say we feed it over BitTorrent. Help lessen the load, you know! | |
|
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
| A very good idea Thanks for giving the people of the internet a great idea...
If nobody WAS going to "remix" it, sounds like they just gave several people the idea to
I find this part of the Wired article to be very interesting:
---
"The public interest will not be served by broadcasting a single snippet of these proceedings, because doing so places a misleading emphasis on a limited aspect of the judicial process." ---
A limited aspect? Sure, a "hearing" may not mean the "full trial" but if a hearing and the ensuing trial are a "limited aspect" of our judicial process, what are some of the less limited ones?
Is that admitting to buying people off, extorting everyone they can, not paying artists fairly, and being jerks in general?
Did they really just allude to such things? | |
|
approval from:
AVD
PrntRhd
| WOW How is it that in our Society someone can sue for $1 Mill when the only possible damage cost only like $10?? WTF is this world coming to? | |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | So basically... they're scared because they know public opinion is against them.
Well, here's the deal - intellectual property law is nothing but public opinion. This isn't tangible property, the idea that ideas are worth X amount of money is just an idea, and society controls this idea - namely copyright law.
All it takes is for society to wake up and change copyright law, and these a**holes will be out of a job.
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation
--
Compare VoIP Provider Rates | |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Reason they don't want it televised They want to be able to sell a low bitrate, DRM'd version later. Why let people view it for free? | |
|
| | The RIAA doesn't have much credibility I guess that they're afraid that if the defense puts that network printer on the stand, it will make the RIAA look like idiots in front of the whole world. | |
|
|
|
·