RIAA Moves To Keep Revenue Info Secret 130
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."
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.)
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:2, Insightful)
See, that's exactly what I mean. The RIAA have disingenuously defined the alternative to buying their retail boxed product as illegitimate.
Whereas previous the Audio Home Recording Act [wikipedia.org] assured consumers of their right to make recordings.
Obtaining a recording of an individual song from a friend, whether through sneakernet, FTP, Windows filesharing, or other means, is presumably an alternative to buying a very expensive retail boxed album.
And the RIAA pursues action against that practice.
Without a
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?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but now you've been labelled 'possible terrorist advisor'.
Oh shit, now I'm complicit too.
Yes, and that's what they call a "chain of evidence."
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:2)
Don't go to law school. Become a legislator. That's the ONLY way any of this can possibly change.
In the meantime, as a consumer, and provided you still buy music from retail stores, websites such as Amazon or legal download services such as iTunes Store, use this site [riaaradar.com] to make sure you never, ever put another cent into RIAA coffers again. Oh, and spread the word.
Feeling pangs of guilt for not supporting your favorite artists, who happen to work for a company under the RIAA's umbrella? Go to their concert and/or buy their merchandise, the RIAA doesn't make a dime off that.
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.
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:2)
But the question is whether the RIAA, by requesting that their information be protected, are engaged in "shenanigans." Are they doing something they have no right to do?
Many things. The ones that come to my mind (and I haven't even followed it closely) are (1) illegally joining unrelated cases, (2) using really shoddy "evidence", (3) intentionally targeting people with little to no ability to defend themselves, and (4) dropping rapidly any suits against people who *do* turn out to have the ability to defend themselves.
All of these are abuses of the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I didn't read carefully enough to notice that the "shenanigans" comment was addressed specifically at the issue of the information release.
I don't know enough to have an opinion on that. All I can say is that based on their other behavior it would not be at all surprising if this request were unjustifiable. While past (and ongoing) misdeeds aren't an indictment regarding a specific, separate question, they do guide expectations.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not any more than the amount invested in the corporation. Also, if the shareholders didn't want the corporation engaging in constant legal battles, knowing the risks, they have the ability to influence that decision. As such, they should be responsible for their involvement in that they are electing board members that set a direction of litigation. But
Re: (Score:1)
There are judges not willing to put up with it. They don't oversee the ****s cases though, because like all crafty, well-funded prosecutors the **** can pick the judges for the cases it chooses to prosecute.
That is, they'll probably concentrate on prosecuting the cases in jurisdictions where they can win, or get cases moved to jurisdictions where it is so.
Either the judge not-wililng-to-put up with it, will get replaced, voted out after their competitor gets roundabout **** funding, or the presiding j
Re: (Score:2)
It's stories like these that made me go to law school. I am now a practicing patent attorney. And I have to say, the entrenched interests are very strong. Most patent attorneys support strong patent rights, because they earn their daily bread by convincing their clients that their services are actually valuable. This often translates into political advocacy for strong patent rights, with the consequent effect on business that's been rehashed here countless times.
However, there are groups of us fighting
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)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You're talking about the SEC filings available through EDGAR [sec.gov]. Companies are required to provide a lot of information, but typically at a higher level than individual revenue streams and contracts.
Take a look at the last annual report for Warner Music Group Corp. [sec.gov] Go down to the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS section. Notice how the revenue break down for recorded music is only at the level of "Physi
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Accounting [wikipedia.org]
They don't make a profit/loss/income.
They sell everything they have in circles until it appears that there is no money made or a loss on everything.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
what?
You realise the internet is free and that anyone can get an account on myspace or facebook right?
There is no evil cabal of cackling minions that stop people making decent music. If the RIAA were blown into dust TODAY, no 'new' music would get made that is not already getting made.
There arent great new indie bands sat there on their awesome songs who have pledged not to release them until the RIAA have died.
Maybe you just don't like modern music? Join the club, but it's silly to blame this on the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
You know what, I couldn't care a fuck. because I like their music, so I buy it, I don't get prosecuetd or sent letters about it, and their CDs have no DRM (I know because I rip them to my ipod on purchase day).
So why the fuck should I care?
Re: (Score:1)
How does this prevent you from starting a band in your garage and promoting it through the net?
does the RIAA control the tubes?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I actually agree. I realized that this evil (RIAA and associated companies and "artists") will not be brought down by legal means. They have that domain completely cornered. No, what will bring them down is two things: themselves + fucking pirating their shit (or at least, never, ever pay a dime for any music from the labels, ever.)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
...copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.
Well....Yeah! So is office equipment.
Re: (Score:1)
By that measure, copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.
Since when has human life helped corporations make money?
The average corporation makes more money than the average individual. The average corporation can then afford to (through lobbying, etc) influence laws to protect the ability of corporations to make money - whereas the average individual has little infl
Re: (Score:2)
Great. You just gave RIAA the justification to break down doors and shoot kids with computers on sight.
No kool-aid for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe then enough highly-placed people would finally see what the RIAA is up to.
Then again, they'd probably just require a larger campaign donation to continue to look the other way.
Re: (Score:1)
The reason we have to roughly estimate the value of human life in dollar amounts is because the variables to assess the value are intangible, not because the variables are private. To further your analogy, if a husband is killed and the wife is suing based upon what the husband would have made, I would figure (IANAL), that the wife couldn't just state it's $10 million a year and then hide any financial statements to verify.
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...
Not exactly shocking (Score:1)
Don't let their thugs off the hook (Score:3, Informative)
Make sure their lawyers are disbarred as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Law 101 (Score:3, Funny)
How does thie help the defense? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this help the defense to have this info? It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove. The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help?
The difference between "it is hard to prove how much the damage was" and "it is hard to prove any damage" is probably significant. If it turns out to be "it seems likely, based on reported revenues, that there has been no damage at all" it could seriously affect damages awarded.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
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]
Only in america - (Score:1, Troll)
lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.
Our system of checks and balances is a little more complex than you're making it out to be. And their refusal will likely cost them.
yea (Score:2)
'checks and balances'. as if it EVER worked in the last 40 years. you americans exaggerate the shit you have here, yet that shit keeps dragging all of you down. this last crisis, it drag ALL of us down.
Justifying piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
Fellow pirates,
I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am o
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.
Re: (Score:1)
It seems we already sold this song once in 1977 for Bee Gees tickets... and then again in 1983 for half a mallomar.
The Relevance of Revenue (Score:1)
Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use."
To me this looks like the Robin Hood defense.
Which usually ends with the jury delivering a tar and feathers hand-off of the geek to the Sheriff of Nottingham.
In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.
The geek drawing down three to four times the salary of the juror he faces might want to think twice before openi
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The commercial value of a copyrighted work is one of the prongs of the fair use test.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, the record labels, obviously
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You say this like that's a bad thing. If it's one step closer to destroying Hollywoood accounting, then what's the harm?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I never said i wouldn't enjoy seeing "genuine harm".
Re: (Score:2)
In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.
These are most definitely not routine suits. Furthermore, 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, so it sounds pretty reasonable to me, on the surface anyway. But then again, I'm not a copyright lawyer so I'll leave it at that.
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They probably won't want to make the sales data for specific songs public for a much simpler reason:
The artists who originally created the music would sue them for fraud because their royalties were paid for a much smaller amount of claimed sales.
If the music labels simply reported the numbers which they told the artists, the judge would probably see that the claimed damages are way over-inflated. Even if they used the real numbers, their claimed damages would likely seem excessive. So they (the labels) wou
Re: (Score:1)
I was under the impression revenue information was freely available at the end of every couple financial quarter through SEC regulations anyway - is that not the case? :|
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression revenue information was freely available at the end of every couple financial quarter through SEC regulations anyway - is that not the case? :|
Yes, but not for individual tracks, which is apparently what this Judge wants to see.
Is it downloading or distribution that is illegal? (Score:1)
I'm sure I've read it somewhere, but I have forgotten:
Is downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission illegal? Or is it just the distribution without permission that is illegal?
Or both?
I don't recall any instances where they went after someone who just downloaded songs.
Problem? (Score:3, Funny)
So the media-corps are lying, greedy so-and-so's? (Score:1)
I thought Slashdot was a *news* site ;-)
Just remember folks - home taping is killing music. Honest.
I call bullshit (Score:2)
This is a fishing expedition on the part of the respondent. They are going to try to claim that because the songs made X amount of money, their copyright infringement should fall under fair use. However, they can not show that the revenue would not have been greater if the infringement had not occurred.
All the claimant has to do is show a statistical projection of greater revenue using previous and current data.
And, even if it is shown that the decrease in revenue was not significant, there are three other
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fishing expedition on the part of the respondent.
1. There is no "respondent", only a "defendant".
2. It was the judge , not the defendant, who indicated that the revenue figures were relevant to the fair use defense.
Are you accusing the judge of going on a "fishing expedition"?
Re: (Score:2)
can they even prove that infringement took place?
all the proof they had was the files they allegedly downloaded from the defendants computer. Seeing as how they had the authorization to copy those files from the rights holder, how did infringement even take place?