Nope, not a fan.

Submitted by avenger48 on Wed, 01/28/2009 - 7:09pm

When the government interferes with your private mp3s, or gives a company the ability to do it, that's Communism. The fact of the matter is, things like this only make people want to illegally download mp3s more.  So far, all of my mp3's are legally purchased, but if they keep being such a constant nuisance, that may change.

Login or register to post comments

should't pay any attention to me

Submitted by jihnn on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 5:35am

back in the 70's and 80's i bought hundreds of albums, most of them to get that 1 or possibly 2 songs that were good.

then years later i find out that the record companys used filler on purpose just to maximize their profits.

i'm still angry

if i want a song i find a way to pirate it, guess that makes me a cyber criminal.... lol

 

if it hurts the riaa.... good

Login or register to post comments

What's the problems??

Submitted by spentnickles on Mon, 01/26/2009 - 3:16am

I would think that the lawyers for Joel could argue that the RIAA could use their "advanced" DRM to keep people from "editing" and twisting words out of context.  We all know that DRM is a bunch of BS and can be broken, however it would be a good argument.

I think this SHOULD be broadcast.  It would help people see the strong arm tactics of the RIAA and their methods by which they do it.  Let the public see the truth..

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  If the defendant is innocent, what's the harm in seeing him defend himself?

In the RIAA's defense, maybe the broadcast should be done by a court appointed third party?  This way, the RIAA has no leg to stand on... 

Login or register to post comments

RIAA

Submitted by MeTo on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 11:41am

RIAA = Communism Tear down there wall.

Login or register to post comments

The reality is that the RIAA

Submitted by tehR0XX0Rz on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 5:01am

The reality is that the RIAA wants the trial confidential and secure. They do not want the public to have access to their own arguments and tactics. They do not want the public to learn how to better defend itself by observing this trial.

Login or register to post comments

Absolute bull. It wouldn't

Submitted by Zeroblizzard on Sat, 01/24/2009 - 2:13pm

Absolute bull.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Judge from the same trial basically shut the RiAA down for being completely retarded.

 "The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by
any reasonably tech-savvy individual. Even without improper
modification, statements may be taken out of context, spliced together
with other statements and broadcast (sic) rebroadcast as if it were an
accurate transcript. Such an outcome can only do damage to Petitioner's
case."

 

Problem #1: It's supposedly a live feed. Direct from the camera to the interwebs. Therefore, if it was truly truely live, it would be uneditable. For an example, look no further than the "Wardrobe Malfunction" incident. Live feeds FTW. 

 

Problem #2: The media still takes footage and recording of trials and then messes with them for coverage. As for the rest of us waiting with baited breath for this trial, we'll get the whole thing. (You can't skip ahead into a future that hasn't occured yet, can you?)

Login or register to post comments

How is this any different

Submitted by WhiteRabbit22 on Sat, 01/24/2009 - 2:02pm

How is this any different than a TV broadcast? Those can be edited as well.

 

Maybe some of the things OJ said were taken "out of context" because it was on TV.

 

lulz

Login or register to post comments

"The RIAA claims that

Submitted by nduanetesh on Sat, 01/24/2009 - 1:36pm

"The RIAA claims that unlike a written transcript, "The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual. Even without improper modification, statements may be taken out of context, spliced together with other statements and broadcast (sic) rebroadcast as if it were an accurate transcript. Such an outcome can only do damage to Petitioner's case.""

 

So, let me get this straight: the RIAA is claiming that a written transcript cannot be edited or manipulated, and statements cannot be taken out of context of a written transcript?  Am I the only who realizes that claim is entirely absurd? 

Login or register to post comments

Methinks they protest too

Submitted by jcollins on Sat, 01/24/2009 - 12:50pm

Methinks they protest too much.  ie. they're projecting what THEY would do in the same situation...  As long as the unedited stream is still available it isn't an issue.

Login or register to post comments