That’s the upshot of a federal judge’s ruling ordering both sides in the slow-moving copyright fight to unseal many of the documents in the case.

I’ve embedded the document below so you can parse it yourself. But the important part is that U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton has told both sides to work together over the next few days and weeks to figure out which of the files the public can see. A good chunk of them should be available within the next 10 days.

This won’t be the entire paper pile the three-year old case has thrown off–the ruling only affects documents both sides have filed in their requests for summary judgment. But it should be most of the interesting stuff, since both sides are trying to marshal as much evidence as they can to persuade Stanton.

The two arguments in a nutshell: Viacom (VIA) is arguing that Google (GOOG) and YouTube violated its copyright when they allowed users to upload and play the cable company’s stuff on the video site. And Google is arguing that federal law protects it from copyright-violation claims.

There is presumably stuff in the file embarrassing to both sides. Google has intimated that Viacom executives knowingly uploaded their own stuff to YouTube, for instance, while the Viacom folks hint that YouTube management knowingly uploaded its stuff onto the site.

But as CNET’s Greg Sandoval explained yesterday, Google’s attorneys asked the court to keep the documents sealed for another three months, while Viacom’s team wants them unsealed in two weeks.

So that makes Stanton’s ruling is a small victory for Viacom. But only a small one: The status of the documents won’t have any bearing on the case itself.

show_temp-3

On Friday, Judge Marilyn Patel, who in 2000 issued the injunction that shut Napster down, dismissed Real’s antitrust claims against Disney (DIS) and other movie studios over their alleged collusion to block RealDVD, the company’s “legal” DVD ripper.

The studios and the DVD Copy Control Association, she found, were well within their rights to band together to prevent what they believed to be illegal copying of their content. Real was foolish to think otherwise, and its claim that it has suffered significant losses because of its inability to sell a product of questionable legality is, in a word, ludicrous.

Which is not to say that consumers should not have the right to copy and back up films they have legally purchased, just that the courts have never looked favorably on those who claim that right through a technology that bypasses DVD copy protection and consequently violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

“Real’s purported injury stems from its own decision to manufacture and traffic in a device that is almost certainly illegal under the DMCA,” Patel wrote. “In the circumstances of this case, there is no allegation Real could make that would give it antitrust standing.”

Court Opinion Dismissing Realnetworks Antitrust Case

PREVIOUSLY:

• RealNetworks Still Barred From the DVD Backup Business. Why Does RealNetworks Want to Be in the DVD Backup Business?
• RealDVD Launch Buffering…Buffering…
• Rent. Rip. Restraining Order.
• StealDVD? Well, You Were Asking for It…
• Sue. Rent. Rip. Return.
• Rent. Rip. Return.

A Los Angeles federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against BlueBeat, a California-based site that had briefly sold the band’s music, arguing it used “psycho-acoustic simulation”–basically, making a note-for-note recording of the band’s recordings–to make the songs its own.

The same judge had already issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of music label EMI Music Group against the site earlier in the month and had scheduled a hearing for Friday, Nov. 20. But this ruling cancels out the hearing and by any reasonable standard should end the case.

Then again, this whole story has been a head-scratcher from the start, so who knows? Maybe the BlueBeat guys will try an even more preposterous argument down the road.

Part of me thinks that the whole thing may be some sort of Negativeland/U2 hack/stunt/performance art piece. Or maybe there were a lot of mood-altering substances involved. Or maybe it’s part of a conspiracy to create work for copyright lawyers.

Whatever. I’ve embedded the court ruling below, if you insist on reading it. But here’s a clip of Richard Pryor reading the alphabet on “Sesame Street,” which is just as edifying and much more entertaining.

bluebeat beatles suit –

You know the ones I’m talking about, I’m sure. They’ve been occurring since 2007 and go something like this: “This is the second notice that the factory warranty on your vehicle is about to expire.” Hang up and the machine calls you again later. Transfer to a “warranty specialist” and ask to be taken off the call list and you’re either hung up on or, in my case, given an 800 number to call that turns out to be a phone sex line.

In complaints filed in United States District Court in Chicago, the agency accuses telemarketer Voice Touch and warranty outfit Transcontinental Warranty of deceptive sales practices and violating telemarketing rules with their relentless prerecorded sales pitches for extended vehicle warranties. Among the companies’ numerous violations: dialing every number in a given area code, including those listed in the National Do Not Call Registry; robocalling 911 emergency centers; regularly spoofing call recipients by transmitting phony Caller ID information so that call they can’t identify the originating number; and pressuring consumers into purchasing bogus extended service contracts for their cars.

“This is one of the most aggressive telemarketing schemes the FTC has ever encountered,” chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a statement. “I’m not sure which is worse, the abusive telemarketing tactics of these companies or the way they try to deceive people once they get them on the phone.”

Right on. One question though: If this is the most aggressive telemarketing scheme the FTC has ever encountered, why did it take the agency two years and 30,000 complaints to finally jump into action?

Anyway…

The FTC has asked for temporary restraining orders to halt the illegal robocalls, an asset freeze on both defendants and a permanent injunction that would force them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.

UPDATE: A federal judge has issued temporary restraining orders against the companies halting their “robo-dialer harassment.” He has also frozen their assets until a May 29 hearing on the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The Microsoft antitrust trial seems like a distant memory, doesn’t it?

Not quite yet to the Justice Department, it seems, which asked the federal judge overseeing the 2002 settlement with federal and state regulators yesterday to extend her oversight of some of the judgment another 18 months.

The Justice Department said it wants that extended to make sure Microsoft fully complies with the requirement that technical documentation to licensees is crackerjack.

And Microsoft (MSFT) has agreed to be under the watch until May, 2011.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s oversight of the software giant was supposed to run out this November. She must approve the extension.

Here’s the U.S. Department of Justice’s press release on the issue:

Justice Department Requests Extension of Microsoft Final Judgment

Microsoft Agrees to 18-Month Extension, Subject to Court Approval

WASHINGTON, April 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/–The Department of Justice told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today that it is necessary to extend the term of certain portions of the Microsoft final judgment by at least 18 months. The Department said that an extension is necessary to ensure the quality of the technical documentation Microsoft provides to licensees.

The Department’s Antitrust Division made its views known today as part of its Joint Status Report to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Antitrust Division enforces the final judgment in conjunction with antitrust enforcers from 17 states and the District of Columbia, which along with Microsoft joined in today’s filing with the court.

In 2006, Microsoft agreed to a two-year extension of the communications protocol licensing program contained in Section III.E of the final judgment, along with all of the final judgment’s enforcement provisions. Microsoft also agreed that the Department and state antitrust enforcement agencies may, at their discretion, apply to the court for an additional extension of all or part of the extended provisions of the final judgment for a period of up to three additional years, through November 2012. The United States is exercising its right under this provision to seek an extension of Section III.E and its supporting provisions through May 12, 2011. Without this action, the final judgment would have expired on Nov. 12, 2009.

Section III.E of the final judgment requires that Microsoft make available to competing server software developers, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, certain technology used by Microsoft to make its server operating systems interoperate with client PCs running the Windows operating system. Microsoft must provide licensees with technical documentation that is designed to enable them to use this technology in their own server products so that those products work better with Windows.

In past status reports, the Department reported to the court its concerns with the quality of the technical documentation Microsoft provides to licensees under this program and with the length of time it is taking Microsoft to improve that documentation.

The Department today also submitted the necessary papers to the court for its consideration.

With potentially millions of dollars in compensatory damages at stake here, there’s no way Microsoft (MSFT) will allow the motion to go unchallenged.

The trial is currently set to begin April 13, unless the plaintiffs succeed in having it postponed.