Slashdot Mirror
Music Download Pricing Lawsuits Pending?
larry bagina writes "New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has subpoenaed Warner Music Group, apparently looking into allegations of price fixing with Sony/BMG, EMI, and Vivendi, and apparently more subpoenas are in the pipeline. 'As part of an industrywide investigation concerning pricing of digital music downloads, we received a subpoena from Atty. Gen. Spitzer's office as disclosed in our public filings. We are cooperating fully with the inquiry.'"
remember downhillbattle and EFF. They are fighting for your rights.
Test 1 2 3 4
Who'd have thunk it, the music industry being crooked? So, who are the pirates now?
It does seem maybe these (alleged) crooks may be losing their grip on the industry: getting caught with their hand in the pricing cookie jar, and potential other investigations into payola (the other way they control the flow and exposure to music/artists).
Disclaimer: I know, innocent until proven guilty, but with the propensity and willingness of these (alleged) crooks to string up the customer like so many Christmas (Merry!) lights, publicly indicting/convicting consumers before trial. How's the shoe feel on the other foot? Maybe there really is a Santa Claus(e)!
Pricing of Downloaded Songs Prompts Antitrust Subpoenas
"Does he even have jurisdiction for this? Isn't this a federal matter?"
Sure he does. So long as ONE person in his state has been victimized by RIAA price fixing.
Corporatism != Free Market
Dear recording industry: Ha! Merry Fucking Christmas, motherfuckers!
Clever signature text goes here.
The Sherman Act gives state AGs the power to sue on behalf of its affected citizens as parens patriae. Private parties affected by anticompetitive conduct can also sue, but consumers in general ordinarily do not have a cause of action.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
at the online music stores. My thought is that the music companies want this investigation, because they in fact want to sell music for more money, but are being prevented from doing so by yahoo, itms, etc. So, Spitzer might be working for them this time.
Arguably he's done it to boost the public's impression of him, but at least he's done something real good to do it unlike latching on to divisive issues. He's punished so many crooked corps: Wall Street, insurance, payola, and now the music companies again. Here's a profile: Wikipedia Profile The consumers will lose a great public advocate when he goes on to become Governor (although one hopes he'll use his clout there to do even more reform.)
If I recall correctly, Warner has a significant marketshare and tends to be the "market leader". Also, it tried to fix prices on certain Three Tenors recordings. That might be why they're on a short leash. Surely, if the subpoenas lead to anything, others will also get supoenas.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
wouldn't be the first time http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30 -cd-settlement_x.htm
I remember a case back in the late 90's where I got a small check.
there's no mention of this in the bible, music downloads are just a theory of atheist scientists
You know, the one where they got fined and then CDs still cost the exact fucking same?
Hey! Hey! Stop that! On Slashdot we work firmly on *CONJECTURE* and *KNOW HOW*. Bringing facts to the table is cheating!
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
It's difficult to not admire the tenacity and inginuity with which he pursues these people. But it's also difficult to make the case that they are punished in proportion to their transgressions. Steal hundreds of millions, but you'll have to give millions back. Where is the disincentive? Collude to steal billions, and be forced to offer rebates that customers won't take wide spread advantage of because we've got to make it convienent for the criminals. These people who do economic harm on this scale, they need to lose everything and spend everyday of the rest of their lives in a very deep, dark, lonely, empty hole. That's disincentive. But to think, we live in an age when half-measures from politicians are genuinly deserving of praise. It's sad.
My god! A new meme has spawned! Er... i mean it was designed... intelligently.
... wow. While I'm ok with this partilcular lawsuit, when's the last time you woke up and check the news and didn't see few new gigantic lawsuits happening every damn day?
Is it just me, or we have waaay too much lawsuits going on here. I mean, lawsuits are supposed to be the exception, and the regulator is supposed to be the law with the help of a possibility for lawsuit.
Today, we just have a bunch of lawsuits from people raping the system, and no benefits. For how long can the system sustain this?
You know this is millions of people giving part of their wage for lawyer/lawsuit expenses. You have to work more and get less, so that all those lawsuits can happen. Directly or indirectly.
God damn it everything is so wrong.
**head explodes**
As the concert date approached, both companies became concerned that the new products would be neither as original nor as commercially appealing as products already available to consumers. In an effort to shield the new products from competition, Warner and PolyGram agreed not to discount and not to advertise certain of their catalog products for a limited period of time, the complaint says
So they decided not to advertise about previous releases?Well,dont many companies do this?Only here,seems both of them decided together.& what competition are they talking about,when they own the rights.?
1. Had there been actual competition, instead of a oligopoly of a few major labels, a decision to market older products less wouldn't have given the Three Tenors any competitive advantage, seeing as how 100 other record labels wouldn't hold back on the promotion.
2. The record companies screwed all other artists that weren't the Three Tenors.
3. Copyright is a (prohibition) right granted under the theory that allowing creators to benefit of their works stimulated them to make more works. If artists didn't get properly compensated, the reasoning goes, we would all be stuck with the same old tripe. In this case, the record companies clearly intended to delude the consumer into thinking, yes, the same old Three Tenor tripe is all that's out there to buy.
4. Pooling two companies' promotion clout allowed them to come on top of the Three Tenor deal. Had they not colluded, they would have taken a loss, to the benefit of their competitors, and the market (the invisible hand should smack down on crappy business, should it not). Competitors that (hypothetically) would play fair wouldn't be able to recoup bad investments in the same way, they'd be SOL - cf. Standard Oil's pricedumping.
So, they screwed the artists, the consumers, competitors, and the Constitution. Not a bad run.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
While I like some of the things he has done, he also can be a grade-A asshole. He decided that AIG, the Starr Foundation, Hank Greenburg, and a few others responsible for building up AIG over the last 40 years were criminals, and so prosecuted them to get evidence for his suspicions.... and he is still looking for that pesky evidence, and gosh darnit, he hasn't found it yet. AIG has restated their earnings for the last 5 years (which is a massively big deal, for those of you who don't know), and in doing so, changed their estimated net worth from about 81 billion to 79 billion. Whooo-fucking-hooo. He is now trying to investigate transactions made between AIG and the Starr Foundation going back to 1967 in order to find something to justify the ruining of the lives of lots of people at those companies.
Don't get me wrong - I hate abuses by large corporations, and I think he has done many good things to protect consumers. But he has a large ego, and doesn't know when to quit. I think he was hoping AIG was the next Enron, and when it turned out it wasn't even close, he got vicious and couldn't let it go, despite the fact he is hurting a lot of innocent people in the process. Of course, I am a bit biased, since I personally know some of the people whose careers he has ruined and finances he has messed up.
He's better than many, but he ain't no saint.
Let's stuff a bunch of bullshit into an already bullshit-clogged legal system.
Seriously, the only way our problems with the recording industry are going to be solved is if they change their business model to reflect the 21st century. Until then, it'll just be the same old shit over and over again. Our legal system is warped beyond belief, so it's not going to help anyone here.
All your base are belong to Google.
Everyone of us!
This is what we have said all along: "Reasonably priced (according to cost, not to traditional prices and unencumbered by nasty DRM schemes, we are willing to pay for music"
If this indictment goes forward, it might give honest distributors the occasion to prove the point. The cost of downloading a song on the Internet is pennies. Even considering a decent profit, a reasonable pricing will do wonders to discourage pirating. The value is there for the consumer and the business model is simple.
The message of this is: stop suing your consumers or your consumers will beging to sue you back!
Very true. Even if you are one of the cynics and are stating that he is doing this to get younger votes, he probably is starting to really tick off Sony BMG. Afterall, he filed a class action lawsuit over the Sony Rootkit fiasco, and now he is looking into price fixing. Makes you wonder why he is out to get them, but it sure is nice to see a politician finally going after these guys. And the fact Sony BMG is squarely in his sights is really nice. If I was an exec over at Sony I would start looking at finding out when his term is up, and start looking at funding a potential person to run against him -- get him out of office, or get someone in Albany to cut his budget or something so that he couldn't pursue it. But I am all for it. I am really glad to see that states AG's are starting to treat RIAA like the scum they are.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
I've solved the problem on my end.
I don't buy music anymore.
I can live without it -- the real question is, can they live without my money? The answer to that one is probably also "yes", but that's okay. I'm not out to destroy them, I just don't want to be a supporter of their industry anymore.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
So here goes
For a show called, "10 types of people"
Start spreading the news.
I'm leaving today!
I want to be a part of it,
New York, New York!
I want to wake up
In a city that doesn't sleep!
I'm a consumer with rights
I want my fair price!
And no price fix-iiing!
No DRM crap
For me in New York
I really love that Eliot
Spitzer, Spitzer!
Oh Mr. Spitzer,
Please remove that Sony Rootkit!
And give my music to ME
Without some greedy
Hollywood scheeeeeme!
In Manhattan and Queens
And Bronx if I dare
My iPod has cheap music
Bought in New York
We told that Warner
To stop screwing the litttttle guy!
"You have to set a fair price!
No fixing or die,"
Said Spitzer, Amen!
Eliot Spitzer
We love you so much
New York is fair and balanced
Because of yooooou!
We want to thank you
For protecting consumer rights
We really love you a lot
In-a straight kinda way
We're really not gay!
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Drunk on the power of his office, and vindictive. Here's a nice little interaction he had with a former chairman of Goldman Sachs:
Last April, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by me titled "Mr. Spitzer Has Gone Too Far." In it I expressed my belief that in America, everyone -- including Hank Greenberg -- is innocent until proven guilty. "Something has gone seriously awry," I wrote, "when a state attorney general can go on television and charge one of America's best CEOs and most generous philanthropists with fraud before any charges have been brought, before the possible defendant has even had a chance to know what he personally is alleged to have done, and while the investigation is still under way."
Since there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next, I feel I must now set the record straight. After reading my op-ed piece, Mr. Spitzer tried to phone me. I was traveling in Texas but he reached me early in the afternoon. After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:
"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."
I tried to interrupt to say he was doing to me exactly what he'd been doing to others, but he wouldn't be interrupted. He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary.
It's up to others to make their own conclusions. I have only set out here what happened.
Mr. Whitehead, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, is chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
Because Elliot Spitzer has ambition to higher office (where he'll certainly get my vote), whereas other states' attorneys general are content with sitting on their asses?
Just a theory.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
If Spitzer is doing this for his own good, for the good of the consumers, or just because he felt like suing someone, he is doing a good thing.