dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
1429
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

No Federal trial has ever been streamed live

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.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


POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

3 recommendations

said by FFH5:

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

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5
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
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

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.html

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.


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

3 recommendations

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

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


dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
said by fatness:

said by FFH5:

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

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5
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.



FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

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.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.
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


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

2 recommendations

If what is streamed is not altered, there's no bias or conflict of interest. What does it matter who streams it or for what reason? If a conservative and a liberal (just for example) each stream the same broadcast, unaltered, are the streams biased?
--
goodbye dad


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

reply to POB
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!
Expand your moderator at work


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to FFH5

Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live

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.


insomniac84

join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
reply to FFH5
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.

jc10098

join:2002-04-10
reply to Anon
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.

baj475

join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA

1 recommendation

reply to moonpuppy
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.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
reply to jc10098
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

dentman42
Premium
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH

2 recommendations

reply to fatness
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?

jc10098

join:2002-04-10
reply to S_engineer
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.


TomClancy
Freedom Isn't Free

join:2003-04-23
...
reply to baj475
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.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
reply to jc10098
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

jc10098

join:2002-04-10
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.
Expand your moderator at work


33591094

join:2002-11-19
Canada
reply to FFH5

Re: No Federal trial has ever been streamed live

You and yours fear change - too bad.

It's coming....
--
...

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to FFH5
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


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to FFH5
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


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to baj475
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