5162761
story
Comments: 130 +- Your Rights Online: RIAA Moves To Keep Revenue Info Secret on Friday July 10, @06:11PM
Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday July 10, @06:11PM
from the yes-your-honor-it's-100k-per-cd-trust-us dept.
from the yes-your-honor-it's-100k-per-cd-trust-us dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmediaall.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
media
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmusic.gif); width:60px; height:49px;
music
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the Boston, Massachusetts case SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Court had ordered the RIAA to produce certain revenue information, which would be relevant to a determination of the 'fair use' defense. The RIAA has now moved for a protective order to keep the information 'confidential.' In the opinion of the undersigned, the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary' would be unfounded, and the sole purpose for making the motion is to keep the information out of the hands of lawyers for other defendants, thus increasing the defense costs in other cases."
Related Stories
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
-- Francis Bacon
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be if it were used to maintain their market dominance or if it were used to harm the consumer by controlling aspects of the market to keep prices high or to keep prices lower than alternatives.
This is about the [ab]use of the legal process. There are other laws regulating that, but at the moment, using the legal system the way the RIAA does is rarely if ever punished. It is unfortunate but there are reasons for being reluctant to make changes or take measures against abuses of the legal process not the least of which would place additional burden, complications and scrutiny on those seeking relief through the legal system and might ultimately lead to preventing some people from being able to seek relief at all.
The RIAA is an aggressive and abusive entity that is designed and intended to be exactly what it is. Unfortunately, seeking relief from the existence or the activities of the RIAA would be a painfully slow if not impossible task. The act of preventing anyone from participating in the judiciary process of government potentially damages the rights of all. (On the other hand, we already prevent convicted felons from participating in elections or other such things and disbarring lawyers isn't unheard of either.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One alternative would be downloading music for free.
The RIAAs actions are calculated to force consumers to pay a higher price for retail-boxed music than they would otherwise be willing to.
E.g. the abuse by the RIAA in the form of excessively high prices and forced bundling of multiple songs into "album" packaging drives consumers towards less-expensive alternatives.
The RIAA pursues actions which eliminate those alternatives, or make them more expensive by introducing artificial costs and restricti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hard to point to a 'legitimate' alternative, except for maybe the acceptable price for goods as determined by the law of supply and demand. RIAA v. Adam Smith
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps you're correct in this case, but lawsuits are often direct against music startups in order to bully them into accepting heinous rates or giving away huge amounts of equity. Collusion on that front would definitely be anti-trust fodder.
Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust (Score:4, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they paid fines twice in the last 15 years or so for doing exactly that? IE, price fixing on CDs? I seem to remember that both times they did so without admitting fault, but I don't think that changes anything.
I'm not a big "zomg government in corporations' pockets!!" guy, but how many times does one fine a group of companies for conspiring to control market prices before one decides that there's a problem actually needing to be fixed? And how many times can those same people pass up opportunities to try to do something about it before we're left without choice but to question their motives or competency?
Parent
Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust (Score:4, Funny)
Ahh, but now you've been labelled 'possible terrorist advisor'.
Oh shit, now I'm complicit too.
Parent
Seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't go to law school. Become a legislator. That's the ONLY way any of this can possibly change.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To be fair, at least half of them are mail order degrees.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Shenanigans? They're not refusing to provide the requested information. They're just asking for a protective order so that certain information is used only for the trial and not disclosed to the public. These requests are commonplace and parties usually agree to them without putting up a fight.
Consider production of a hard drive in a file sharing case. It is only fair that the copyright owner agree to a protective order limiting what ca
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Informative)
So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?
The RIAA has thousands of cases going on, from threatening letters and settlement offers to actual court actions. The information in this case would be likely to be relevant to large amounts of those cases. We have already seen them make contradictory claims in different cases. It would serve justice and streamline the legal process for their information to be public.
The info from the hard drives of individual file sharers, however, would only usually be relevant to the case at hand. It would also be egregious privacy violation for that info to be make public and if court enforced, could amount to a 4th amendment violation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA has thousands of cases going on, from threatening letters and settlement offers to actual court actions. The information in this case would be likely to be relevant to large amounts of those cases. We have already seen them make contradictory claims in different cases. It would serve justice and streamline the legal process for their information to be public.
The info from the hard drives of individual file sharers, however, would only usually be relevant to the case at hand.
Well put. But as we know by know, "serv[ing] justice and streamlin[ing] the legal process" are anathema to the RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?
Because information used to project authority must always be closely scrutinized, in broad daylight. The file sharers' info is a personal matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?
Because a corporation is not a person.
Unsurprising (Score:5, Funny)
Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.
True, sadly it frequently works for them... Some people never do grow up in that respect.
Corporation? (Score:5, Insightful)
If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc. If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only publicly traded companies have such an obligation.
I have my own corporation and I don't publish my income and profits to anybody (except the government for tax purposes).
Re:Corporation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing to say, "We made $X in the last year," and another to break down that $X to say exactly how much came from each song, how much came from iTunes and how much came from WalMart, and describe exactly where all those numbers came from.
Why is it.... (Score:5, Funny)
And, then I realized it wasn't going to do any good at all.
All that's left to do is sigh....
Oh... and download some music from megaupload...
p.s. that was a joke of course! I use other download services!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
same here, although after seeing this im tempted to download even more music.. if only today's music didnt suck so much. Maybe without the RIAA and other corporations only in the music industry for profits, we'd get better songs which are actually worth buying.
Then they can't "prove" damages (Score:4, Insightful)
it's merely an assertion of damages. Lost revenue? Prove it.
Re:Then they can't "prove" damages (Score:5, Interesting)
Courts assess damages based on no real proof every day. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much a human life is worth. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much the next 30-40-50 years of your life will be worth. If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.
As for a number? The RIAA is going to bring in marketing bean counters who will twist numbers in all sorts of methods and many, if not all, of these methods will likely be recognized by the courts as valid. You can try to pass down whatever Slashdottian logic you'd like on the verdict but the courts won't hear it and even if they did the lawyers would have a direct answer.
If these people were as lunkheaded as you all make them out to be the RIAA would have been some half assed collection of labels that haven't been heard of in decades. Granted, their days may be numbered but I bet you good money that today they're still profitable and they plan on staying that way. They're not going to collapse overnight anymore than Microsoft is.
I'm sorry, but Slashdotters have a way of overestimating some variables and underestimating others. After all, I've been hearing of the death of little rinky dinky SCO for years and it's only in the last few months has it been in it's real final days. Thinking that this organization can be brought down in a few court cases is laughable.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.
By that measure, copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.
Are they not public companies? (Score:2, Interesting)
And therefore have to file government reports? I know the RIAA is just an organization, but the members have to file, correct? Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because that doesn't seem suspicious AT ALL...
Law 101 (Score:3, Funny)
Can the Judge say "maybe"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?"
I ask because it seems crazy to me that the judge can rule on how important the information is to their business without actually seeing it, or hearing what the other side has to say about it. (Wouldn't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon?)
Re:Can the Judge say "maybe"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge can issue an order for en camera review - essentially he get's to look at it first without any promises that it will ever go to the defense. So yes, he can certainly gag it for now and then remove the gag at any time it's petitioned to do so.
Parent
Dumb question? (Score:2)
Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?
Re:Dumb question? (Score:5, Informative)
Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?
FTA:
"By July 10, 2009, the Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendant with yearly estimates, beginning in 1999, of the revenues generated by their copyrights in the specific songs for which they intend to prove infringement at trial. They should separate physical and digital music sales and should provide Defendant with a description of the methodology used to arrive at these figures."
Tax returns would not contain revenue information for each individual song.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?
These are public corporations; the information might even be in their filings with the SEC.
Proprietary...to what business model? (Score:2, Interesting)
Declaring revenue information proprietary would only make sense if their business model was based on lawsuits.
And that's just preposterous. ;)
One caveat (in seriousness) - don't assume that they're trying to keep this information away from defendants. It's quite possible they would like to keep it away from the artists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hollywood accounting is well known. It would be interesting to see exactly how different the numbers presented to the individual artists differed from the numbers presented in court. I know of several artists that had top 10 hits in the 60s & 70s that are still waiting for their first royalty check.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course to quote Rich Fiscus of afterdawn.com
You may also want to look into Hollyw [wikipedia.org]
FACTS are DANGEROUS (Score:4, Interesting)
"and (2) a number of confidential agreements demonstrating Plaintiffsâ(TM) ownership of certain of the sound recordings at issue in the case."
ummmm? They don't want to show the title chain of ownership because then an actual assessment of its worth could be accurately made.
i.e. Ownership has already changed hands so many times for such paltry sums that any jury or judge would see that it is patently ridiculous for you to sue suzie homemaker for $35M for distributing 30 copies free. RIAA arguement that we're 'protecting artists' is COMPLETELY baseless, as we rip artists off spectacularly and on a regular basis. Can't have those details getting out.
chain of ownership (Score:2)
Why would ownership of rights be confidential?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would ownership of rights be confidential?
It wouldn't be, in a case based upon the alleged ownership of those rights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but I meant, why would the owner of rights want to keep that fact confidential, as the RIAA claims to be the case for some songs? I don't see how that would be of commercial advantage. Are we talking about something like Pat Robertson not wanting to be known as the owner of some raunchy rap song? Or is this just RIAA BS?
WTF ? (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't follow at all. Competitors would normally agree to not share information in public. It is in all their interests. If they win the motion all their secrets are safe. What point is there in having a competitors secrets if he has yours ? If they were to reveal their secrets, then the data would definitely not be valuable would it. Just making a joint motion does not imply anything, as they haven't shared any data.
Also, the RIAA is specifically set up to act on those competitors behalf. Of course it will be a joint motion.
Competitor 1, will you share your data ? - - No.
Competitor 2, will you share your data ? - - No.
Competitor 3, will you share your data ? - - No.
Competitor 4, will you share your data ? - - No.
Oh the data can't be worth anything then ????
I hope you have better arguments than that one.
Problem? (Score:3, Funny)
Don't let their thugs off the hook (Score:3, Informative)
Make sure their lawyers are disbarred as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Bwa ha ha ha ha! Oh, wait, you were serious? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Damn, you nearly made me choke on my coke son! Let me explain how the government works. You see they have these little balls of corruption called "congress critters" and the *.A.As bring by their little treason makers...err lobbyists and their big fat checks..err grievances to the congress critter, who after stuffing their pockets like pigs at a trough with these big fat checks...I mean grievances, then say "Fuck the people? Sure pal, anyt
Re:The Relevance of Revenue (Score:4, Interesting)
Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use."
One of the factors used in determining whether something was fair use or not is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".
I suspect that the defense is trying to show that the songs in question made tons of money, despite the actions of the defendant, and as such this test might favor the defendant.
I don't know whether or not this will actually *work*, mind you, but it seems to provide a handle to request such information.
Parent
Re:The Relevance of Revenue (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, a breakdown of actual revenue can likely be used to demonstrate that it is unlikely that any damage occurred at all from the alleged infringement. The use causing financial damages to the holder of the copyright is directly relevant to whether or not the use qualifies as fair use under copyright law.
Right now the RIAA wants to claim that filesharing hurts them really really bad. They claim it costs them billions of dollars and push for outrageous amounts per individual song infringed (which, even if you accept their numbers and divide it among the tens of millions of shared music copies would never reach even $5 a song let alone tens of thousands). Music is going to be destroyed by this heinous activity, etc, etc, etc. But they are raking in record level profits while every other industry is crashing. The last thing the RIAA wants is for you to see real numbers and details of the methods used to derive them because their numbers are cooked and may be made up entirely.
Parent
Re:The Relevance of Revenue (Score:4, Informative)
the judge is telling them to provide financial data on the specific songs that the RIAA has claimed were illegally distributed, to which they have made an outrageous claim of value and loss of revenue. They opened the door to this, not the defendant
Actually the judge isn't up to the "excessiveness" issue yet; she ruled that she will revisit that issue only if and when the RIAA gets a jury verdict for statutory damages. Her ruling ordering production of the revenue information [blogspot.com] relates strictly to the fair use defense:
However, because the Court has held discovery open on fair use, discovery requests on this subject served prior to June 22, 2009, the deadline set by the Court, are treated as timely. See Revised Scheduling Order at 5 (document # 850). Yet even here the Defendant's late-breaking effort to add the fair use defense, and the imminent trial date reaffirmed today by the parties, necessarily limits the breadth of the available discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Thus, to the extent that Interrogatories 2, 3, and 8 seek information related to the fair use analysis under 17 U.S.C. 107(4) (requiring consideration of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work") , the Court will permit some investigation. By July 10, 2009, the Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendant with yearly estimates, beginning in 1999, of the revenues generated by their copyrights in the specific songs for which they intend to prove infringement at trial. They should separate physical and digital music sales and should provide Defendant with a description of the methodology used to arrive at these figures. The Court will reconsider the need for discovery on any issues relating to actual damages if and when the Defendant's constitutional challenge becomes ripe -- i.e., should the jury award damages against him." (Gaudet, Jennifer)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well, here's the thing: They can refuse to present evidence. However, the act of refusal itself weakens their case.
Failing to show evidence and refusing to show evidence are two entirely different things.