Antitrust Case Against RIAA Reinstated 163
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After Starr v. SONY BMG Music Entertainment was dismissed at the District Court level,
the antitrust class action against the RIAA has been reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In its 25-page opinion (PDF), the Appeals court held the following allegations sufficiently allege antitrust violations: 'First, defendants agreed to launch MusicNet and pressplay, both of which charged unreasonably high prices and contained similar DRMs. Second, none of the defendants dramatically reduced their prices for Internet Music (as compared to CDs), despite the fact that all defendants experienced dramatic cost reductions in producing Internet Music. Third, when defendants began to sell Internet Music through entities they did not own or control, they maintained the same unreasonably high prices and DRMs as MusicNet itself. Fourth, defendants used MFNs [most favored nation clauses] in their licenses that had the effect of guaranteeing that the licensor who signed the MFN received terms no less favorable than terms offered to other licensors. For example, both EMI and UMG used MFN clauses in their licensing agreements with MusicNet. Fifth, defendants used the MFNs to enforce a wholesale price floor of about 70 cents per song. Sixth, all defendants refuse to do business with eMusic, the #2 Internet Music retailer. Seventh, in or about May 2005, all defendants raised wholesale prices from about $0.65 per song to $0.70 per song. This price increase was enforced by MFNs.'"
Re:What about my stress level (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thanks again NYCL (Score:5, Informative)
At one point they also lobbied to get a law that would allow them to hack your computer and wipe out the content if they suspected you of having illegal music. Fortunately Congress did not agree.
Re:What about my stress level (Score:5, Informative)
"This video contains content from Vevo, who has decided to block it in your country. "
Re:RIAA has stopped Sueing (Score:5, Informative)
i think the point is that 1) all the record companies set the same price and 2) they all raised their prices together. these two facts seem to demonstrate collusion in the market. that being the case or not is up to the courts.
Re:Thanks again NYCL (Score:3, Informative)
This! Kudos to Ray Beckerman for your tireless work, and everybody:
Read Courtney Love's article! It's an amazing read!
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ [salon.com] (Courtney Love Does the Math, from 2000 - looking at it now, oddly prophetic)
Don't miss out kids! (Score:4, Informative)
Try here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEmTbpvj9fM [youtube.com]
Wonder if the 6 billion lawsuit will be mentioned (Score:3, Informative)
that is the fact that the canadian arm of the R.I.A.A. up here called the CRIA hasnt paid 300,000 artists since 1980.
BOY oh boy thats a bomb to say in court eh?
if they are commercially pirating up in canada , are they doing it in the USA and other countries and does that mean that record breaking profit year really mean profit to the riaa OR is it fraudulently stolen monies.
Re:Thanks again NYCL (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47552
1st hit on google "RIAA wants to hack computers". Stop being so lazy :p
Re:Thanks again NYCL (Score:3, Informative)
[citation needed]
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47552?currentPage=all [wired.com]
Re:Don't miss out kids! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why was I modded Troll? (Score:5, Informative)
Read the Starr vs Sony decision linked in the summary and you'll discover that the appeals judges found the evidence is strong that RIAA members have been colluding using illegal (under antitrust law) methods such as price fixing [wikipedia.org]. E.g., they ask why RIAA members raised the wholesale price from $0.65/song to $0.70/song while the second largest distributor of music, eMusic, was wholesaling at $0.25/song. In the stereotypical "normal free market", competition as well as decreased production costs would lead to lower prices.
Re:RIAA has stopped Sueing (Score:1, Informative)
he RIAA announced that they were terminating their practices of filing hundreds of civil lawsuits [google.com] so your jaywalking children should be okay.
And then they proceeded to continue filing lawsuits like they never said that: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/hypocrisy-or-necessity-riaa-continues-filing-lawsuits.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re:Thanks again NYCL (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have the slightest doubt that the allegations are true, and can easily be proven. If I were a betting man, I'd be betting..... settlement.
The question of if the RIAA loses and if they make a settlement and on how favorable of terms probably has less to do with their guilt and the law than it has to do with who is running the show. The justice department is loaded with ex-employees of RIAA at the highest levels.
This is a private class action; it has nothing to do with the justice department. It would have to do with what the lawyers work out, whether class members object, and whether the judge approves of the deal.
Re:What about my stress level (Score:3, Informative)
same here in ireland
but lets get it clear who's blocking us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vevo [wikipedia.org]
Vevo is a music video and entertainment website. It is owned by Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Abu Dhabi Media Company.[1] The service was launched officially on 8 December 2009.[2] The video hosting for Vevo is provided by YouTube, with Google and Vevo sharing the advertising revenue.[3] Vevo offers music videos from three of the four major record labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI.[4]
One of the reasons cited for the launch of Vevo is the competition that music videos have on YouTube. Warner Music Group apparently removed its content from YouTube in March 2009 for this reason, but is said to be considering hosting its content on Vevo.[5]