RIAA Explanation For Not Wanting Court Broadcast: Those Geeks Might Remix It

from the context-is-king dept

Wed, Jan 21st 2009 1:13am — Mike Masnick

We've already discussed how badly the RIAA does not want the pretrial hearings in the Tenenbaum case to be broadcast -- as was requested by Tenenbaum's lawyers, and approved by the judge in the case. However, the reasoning from the RIAA is pretty laughable. Apparently, it's afraid that (gasp!) some of these tech savvy propaganda-ists out there might remix the video and "manipulate" it to take RIAA arguments out of context. Of course, in saying so, the RIAA has now pretty much guaranteed that's what will happen, but... that still shouldn't matter. We know the RIAA is against the whole concept of remixing, but we thought that was a copyright issue, not one where they actually think that such remixes are universally taken as fact. I wonder if the folks at the RIAA think that things like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are serious news programs rather than satire...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadcast, tenenbaum
Companies: riaa

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SteveD, 21 Jan 2009 @ 2:16am

Its definitely a risk... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CvvhDngERXo&feature=related
[ link to this | view in thread ]
icepick314, 21 Jan 2009 @ 2:34am

isn't the supposed broadcast supposed to be streamed live?

how do you "remix" live broadcast?

doesn't the case coverage be like any other coverage from Court TV?

WTF, RIAA?!??!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 3:02am

out of contexte?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 3:04am

out of context?
how about all head lines most of the press use to attract readers?

are they going to request liberty of speech to be revoked?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:24am

real reason
Don't you know the REAL reason? They don't want the world to see the broadcast of them getting their butts kicked in court -- ahh the humiliation!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inc, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:32am

Re:
you can capture a live broadcast then edit it then post it on youtube. this is what the RIAA doesn't want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:35am

In Context
"some of these tech savvy propaganda-ists out there might remix the video and "manipulate" it to take RIAA arguments out of context."

It's so much funnier when it's in context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:54am

Re: icepick314
You obviously aren't one of the tech savvy propaganda-ists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:54am

Re:
Um, you can record *any* broadcast. Streaming does not mean someone smart won't have a copy, or make one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:13am

I thought they where thinking about the children!

or

They did not want the copyrighted evidence illegal distributed on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheesh, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:22am

As opposed to text
Certainly, none of the geeks out there would dare to manipulate text of the proceedings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ben, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:40am

Official Copy
I guess then the RIAA could put out an official copy of it, couldn't they? And who says the RIAA wouldn't alter that copy to their advantage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:48am

Public Entitled to the Court Proceedings
It seems that the discussion is overlooking the issue that court proceedings in most cases are PUBLIC. (see note below) Consequently the RIAA is attempting to squelch free speech.

Though focusing on REMIX speaks of the absurdity of the RIAA position it leaves us "stuck" with looking at this from a copyright issue, that clearly does not apply. We need to take a more aggressive stance by saying that the RIAA is attempting to reduce our rights to participate (by listening) in an open court proceeding.

In the WIRED article In Internet First, RIAA File Sharing Hearing to Be Webcast David Kravets wrote: "The ruling is groundbreaking. Federal trial courts rarely, if ever, permit still pictures or live feeds from their courtrooms, though appeals courts are more open. Most states allow some type of photography, and vest the decision exclusively with the judge presiding over the case." So there is some "maneuvering room" for the RIAA. Nevertheless, here we have an organization that wants ethical behavior on the consumers part demanding that it has a right to squelch freedom of speech, a fundamental right that we are entitled too. Very hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 21 Jan 2009 @ 6:56am

Nice try, RIAA - but it won't fly.

"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us."

-the Addams family motto
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evil Mike, 21 Jan 2009 @ 7:46am

Re:
"Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 21 Jan 2009 @ 9:26am

Finish this joke, please...
"How do you know an RIAA lawyer is lying?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 21 Jan 2009 @ 9:34am

Re: Finish this joke, please...
They're talking!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 11:02am

Re:
lol Talk about not thinking out a post first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 11:51am

To those euphoric few who may view this as a victory of sorts, you have obviously never sat in a court as either counsel or observer. Motion proceedings are as enjoyable to watch as it feels to repeatedly stick your hand with an ice pick.

After the "OJ" debacle some years ago, I well understand why the overwhelming majority of judges give a resounding thumbs down to cameras in the courtroom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo, 21 Jan 2009 @ 12:24pm

Re: In Context
>"some of these tech savvy propaganda-ists out there might >"remix the video and "manipulate" it to take RIAA arguments >out of context."

The Remix -
might it take some RIAA propaganda-ists to remix the video arguments of these tech savvy out there to manipulate and out of context?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:10pm

Re: Finish this joke, please...
They're alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 21 Jan 2009 @ 4:40pm

Not The Same Thing At All
I can see where they're coming from. Programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are legitimately-licensed programs, with an officially-accredited sense of humour. Whereas release stuff like this on the Internet, and any Tom, Dick and Harry, with who knows what idea of a joke, might do anything they like with it. I mean, have you seen some of the things people find funny, when they're left to themselves? It's obvious you can't have that. Satire needs to be carefully managed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brad, 21 Jan 2009 @ 5:58pm

I fully plan to remix it, but onto my next Trance CD. I'll play the arguments, in their entirety, on my tracks. I'll just put a nice back beat behind it. I'll call it "Music Wants to Own You" and I'll go ahead and seed it myself.

Can I get in trouble for seeding my own content? I'm betting my ISP won't know the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2009 @ 9:45am

Re:
I well understand why the overwhelming majority of judges give a resounding thumbs down

Uhm... why? Because no one wants to watch them? As noted above, these are public proceeedings. why should those who want to witness them be denied access because others find it less-than-enjoyable. I, for one, look forward to seeing this hearing because i'm honestly interested in the case, not because I'm looking to be entertained.

Related: can a hand motion really 'resound'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2009 @ 9:47am

Re:
I'll go ahead and seed it myself.

If done right, I'd buy that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]