Slashdot Mirror
Napster Legal Battle Reaches from Beyond the Grave
neelm writes "The EFF is reporting that EMI and Universal Music Group may have been caught lying to the Department of Justice in the 2001 antitrust investigation involving MusicNet, and pressplay. The 2001 investigation found no evidence of illegal efforts to monopolize digital music distribution, but new evidence presented by Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman ("original napster" investors) in their on-going defense from the RIAA suggests otherwise. The judge ruled that the documents to be turned over were not protected by attorney-client privilege because '[the court] finds reasonable cause to believe that the attorney's services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme.'"
Here's hoping they skip the white-collar gig and go directly to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Heck, obstruction of justice was enough to get Martha Stewart convicted.
Does this mean the dead old napster is coming back? Is it still going to be flooded with Brittany spears? Cause I can do without that.
Whoa. The RIAA might be lying. Let me sit down a minute and get my bearings.... This is pretty shocking. Give me a paper bag so I don't hyperventilate.
Hopefully this will turn up some damning evidence on RIAA, but I no longer get my hopes up about anything related to them. Even if this works as a defense the chances that the DOJ is going to reopen the monopoly investigation is probably nil.
The part that interested me is -
"that the RIAA companies forfeited their copyright claims thanks to their coordinated and illegal effort to monopolize digital music distribution"
What exactly do they mean by forfeiting copyright claims? Surely they don't mean that the members of RIAA would lose their copyright over their music? They've got senators that kill those sorts of laws don't they?
Look, I learned real young - don't cop to anything until you know what the other guy has on you. Never.
In effect, the fed has found a really neat way around that pesky fifth amendment. Just offer you immunity - even if you don't admit all of your crimes (and who would?), you may let slip evidence which will let them come get you, all the while screaming "Your fifth amendment rights were not abridged! You incriminated yourself!"
Perhaps I've been out of touch and just assumed this was over, but this quote I found suprising!
The record labels, you see, are still pressing their case against Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman for investing in Napster years ago.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Ah, it's the old "tunnelling over a PPP connection on a Ouija board" trick.
The fact that companies even think this is ok to try is why I have no faith in our legal system.
These companies should have something severe as a punishment, like serious jailtime for the offenders and big fines for the corporation.
Although the current justice dept will probably just put them in the proverbial "time-out" then give them a cookie.
Make an example out of a couple of them.
The government should have the will to reject a corporation's charter for shit like this.
"Here's hoping they skip the white-collar gig and go directly to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. "
What's with geeks and "pound me in the ass"? Is there something you want to tell the rest of us? Something tramatic while browsing slashdot?
The judge has ordered UMG and EMI to hand over previously withheld documents relating to the DoJ investigation, overriding the attorney-client privilege because "the court
I suspect that right now some law firms are watching their reputations take a serious hit. The RIAA is on a rampage and at every turn they do even more damage to their reputation; this is going be another big black mark. If we wait long enough, they will destroy their own cause with all their dirty tactics and outright lies. I'm gonna get some popcorn -- this will be fun to watch.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The investigation will result in a few token gesture penalities and business will continue as usual. Do you really think politicians are going to allow major donors to face serious punishment?
We may have martha as an example but for the most part lying to the court is not prosecuted, and its killing our legal system. In the last few years only 1 case for perjury in the entire nation has been filed. We all know that a lot more poeple are lying under oath. You should also not lie to the authorities, we have a special sentance that you say in lue of lying "I want my lawyer" But these white collar criminals executives companies and even regular people that lie under oath need to get prosecuted. Justice is not served if the court is lyed to. And the courts will not become fair untill prosecuters start investigating, charging and convicting people for purjery. It is undermining our legal system
The EFF is reporting that EMI and Universal Music Group may have been caught lying to the Department of Justice in the 2001 antitrust investigation involving MusicNet
Why does this not surprise me? Why do I automatically think nothing will happen under this administration? Why is the industry always complaining when sales are actually improving and boosting their stock value?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Microsoft Convited.. Loss of Copyrights?
Wouldn't this punishment also apply to the Convicted Illegal Monopoly Power Yeilding company Microsoft? Shouldn't THEY have lost their rights to advantages provided by copyright?
My understanding of the Copyright protections has it that the protection is provided until expired OR the holder violates it's terms. Mybe this is why the source for WindowsCE was released?
sounds like a Douglas Adams character
No worries - the RIAA just needs to buy a law stating that, "Any activities by any RIAA affilliate shall not be considered in violation of any law."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I think the problem is that we clearly have a system that is unworkable in the information age and instead of dealing with it, people sue, people complain, they cry "wahhh, how will I make money with my book", or "wahhh, how will I make money with my movie", or "think of the starving artists", or they want to "fix" it in some way - without accepting that by now copyrights are an all or nothing game.
In fact copyeight compromizes are the worst thing we could to. It's like the US conolists compromising with the Brits, it's like the slave states compromising with the free states. People who thought it was workable simply were in denial of the real world and real world forces that were in play.
Left to its own, I doubt the media or the government will take any action against these companies. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the whole issue be swept underneath the rug. But perhaps this is the first stone that will topple the giant.
Perhaps with the appropriate public backing this will go somewhere. Write your politicians. Write your local news. But whatever you do, do NOT start an online petition.
...EMI and Universal Music Group may have been caught lying to the Department of Justice in the 2001 antitrust investigation, involving MusicNet and pressplay... illegal efforts to monopolize digital music distribution
We all know how MusicNet and Pressplay went on to dominate digital music market...
But the argument that their{RIAA companies) behaviour entails a signifigant part of a criminal conspiracy may get the courts to sit up and take notice/action. Alternately this arguement could just be a PR spin by the defendents.
Had this been in europe, EMI and 'fellas' would be within one stone's throw from being hanged now, metaphorically.
Read radical news here
Ever been to Small Claims Court? The Judge just assumes both parties are lying equally and splits the difference. That means if you tell the truth, you get screwed! (And by the way, when I was taken to Small Claims, the person suing me said "Your honor, he hasn't given me a dime!" to which I replied "I have the canceled checks right here." Was she penalized for deliberate perjury? Not at all! The judge made up an arbitrary amount that was about half of what she was asking for and demanded I pay her. To this day, I have no idea what orifice the judge pulled that number out of...)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The defendants, however, argue that the RIAA companies forfeited their copyright claims thanks to their coordinated and illegal effort to monopolize digital music distribution through MusicNet and pressplay, the ill-fated joint ventures set up by the major labels back in the days of the Napster revolution.
...too bad that quoted sentence may be the EFF's wishful thinking. Mine too.
Meaning that Metallica's Free Speech for the Dumb has lost its copyright?
Sweet, sweet irony!
As to the "pound the ass," I think anal rape is a bit harsh even for RIAA stooges. The US' penal system is in terrible need of reform, but that's a bit OT.
I guess I just don't understand... Why is it I can't tell the difference between the two acronyms: "RIAA" and "RICO"?
Universal lawyer: This is not the evidence you're looking for.
Judge: This is not the evidence I'm looking for.
Universal lawyer: Universal did not lie to the DOJ.
Judge: Universal did not lie to the DOJ.
Universal lawyer: My client may pass.
Judge: Your client may pass.
Universal lawyer: Case closed.
Judge: (slam) Case closed.
Universal sub-exec: Wow. Is that the Force?
Universal lawyer: Kinda. Down here, we call it "money".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've read part of the court order and it seems that the defendents are arguing criminal fraud was committed, not only perjury.
LIED! LIED - c'mon now.
I thought this was a *BSD thread...
;)
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
Gotta love Civilization IV, except it runs like shit on my poor outdated computer.
The point stands though. If stupid parents are willing to shell that much money out for the system to placate their whiny kids, then Microsoft should charge that much for it. If no one's going to bite at $400+, then they can always lower the price gradually (as they have been doing). If you don't like it, then you don't have to buy from Microsoft, and well, many aren't and are more than happy with that decision.
"It's from the movie "Office Space". Sorry, but your fantasies about anal sex with geeks will have to go unfulfilled."
Ah well. Back to another lonely night with your right hand.
The real problem is that Napster made all of this popular and therefore public. Everything was fine back in the day when all us nerds could get free stuff via IRC, but Napster had to make it easy for everyone. I realize that it is wrong to steal music and movies, i'm no hippie, but if your gunna steal something be quiet about it, don't go shouting to everyone how you did it or this is what happens. Napster opened the front door and let the RIAA in, it's thier own fault.
btw, just because i think Napster was wrong dosn't mean that the music industry should have free range to price fix and set up monopolies. The bastards should be dismantled.
Where there's smoke,
There's fire.
Where there's fire,
There's documents being burned.
Where those documents are being burned,
There's music executives and lawyers,
Joined hand in hand,
Disposing of any and all evidence.
My guess is any information that would take down the music industry AND their lawyers, is going to be burned/buried or both and we will never see anything.
There's no way they will essentially turn themselves in.
In a broader sense, 'this administration' really refers to the current state of (US) government, the one that's had its politicians bought by industry many times over in (US) history (Rockefeller is a name that comes to mind, along with steel industry...). In what sense has any of this changed appreciably within the last 100 years? New business arenas, same old tactics.
Now, if there were a way to effect permanent positive change on that model, I'd readily support it...
Let S_n = {nst+us+vt : s,t in Z \ {0}, u,v in {-1,1}}. For all n in Z where |n| > 2, Z \ S_n is infinite... right?
Does this mean that the songs I downloaded on napster back in '98-'00 are illegal?
Does that mean they might come after - gulp - me?
.. That back in 60s and 70s, various RIAA members had deals with the Mafia.
Basically the deal was this; the labels would pay protection money to the mob, and in return they made sure that the pressing plants weren't unionised and the records kept flowing out.
Of course, as an interesting side benefit, the mob would then press more than the requested number of records and distribute them via alternate channels.
This is the sort of thing that happen when a culture of immunity builds up within an industry.
this predates RICO and is part of antitrust.
RICO was enacted in 1970. Anything enacted before RICO may have been superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976.
Basic take is that if you use copyright as a tool to violate antitrust, the copyright on the material in question vanishes and it becomes public domain.
This may have applied prior to 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, but too many provisions of 17 USC chapter 1 have the phrase "Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws".
The reactions here are pretty surprising. The plaintiffs may have lied?
This is Napster we're talking about -- a company that was based on a Big Lie; that they weren't aware that their service was used largely for piracy, or that they they weren't trying to make money off of the large demand for piracy. The "smoking gun" internal emails from Shawn Fanning acknowledging that Napster was essentially a piracy service certainly made that clear for anybody who wasn't able understand the blindingly obvious.
And now we have a case where one set of companies who happen to be members of the RIAA (UMG and EMI) are suing another company that happens to be an RIAA member (BMG) and suddenly lying is a bad thing? And UMG/EMI are the bad guys, and BMG is not, even though they all happen to be members of the RIAA?
My guess is that it's not that Slashdot's readership has suddenly found religion; rather, it's situational ethics at its most extreme. It's OK to lie if you're Shawn Fanning when you say things like "I didn't intend Napster to be used for piracy and we don't want Napster to be used for illegal purposes," since, after all, you're doing a great service for the world by letting teenagers everywhere get lots of free music. BMG gets a free pass here as well; despite the fact that they're a record company, they invested in Napster (see "lots of free music").
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I have read the court order and the defendents are not arguing perjury {which would likely be ignored by the news} but rather the defendents are {so far successfully} arguing that criminal fraud has taken place on a large scale.
Perjury might get you a slap on the wrist, fraud is much more likely to get you in deep trouble. Especially as the lawyers for the plantiffs side seem to have tried to use attorney client privelege to hide their respective clients earlier actions.
a) Given the equal or greater number of stories about the niceties offered to prisoners (video games, cable, etc) - depending on the prison the though of anal violation adds somewhat to the deterrence factor
b) People make fun of what they fear. Personally being analy violated is a rather fearsome prospect to me, but if it were brought up I'd probably joke about it. There are many similar jokes based on a similarly macabre sense of humour.
If I try to smuggle crack over the border only to lose it when my car accidentally catches fire, I could still be arrested for smuggling crack. Attempting to break the law or breaking the law for a failed attempt at profit is no less illegal just because of failure.
Hummer-Winblad Venture Partners is not two geeks in a basement. It is one of the biggest and oldest software VC companies in the business. What part of "$2 billion under management" would you like me to explain to you? There probably aren't any better-connected tech-related companies in existence, and I'm certain that both the founders and their biggest investors are at least as well connected at the White House and DOJ level than anyone connected with these labels.
The issue here appears to be that a couple of record companies are trying to tell a major VC company what they can and can not invest in and doing so based on a court case where the labels deliberate lied to the government. What's Wall Street's opinion on that likely to be?
Moreover, they are connected to at least one company very likely to bid on the rights to any music copyrights that these companies would be forced to give up under an asset forfeiture program. You have heard of Apple, right? Though I'm sure Microsoft could find use for these works, too.
I expect an out-of-court settlement... where the record companies ultimately wind up paying H-W big bucks to forget the whole thing and word gets around to never, never, never attack an investment firm for putting money into technology they don't like.
Though we can hope that EMI/UMC choose to be stupid about it. After all, they were stupid enough to go that far with it.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Put it another way . . . as a kid, if your parents said something like "is there anything else I should know about (whatever you got caught doing wrong)" - how many of us immediately said to ourselves "Oh, yes . . . I can unburden myself of all this guilt and get away easy for all the bad stuff I've done"?
Nuh uh . . . I'll confess when you've got photos, video, my fingerprints and DNA, and three witnesses, at least one of which must be either a small innocent child or a nun. Otherwise, it's a filthy lie and I'll deny it in court!
In the last few years only 1 case for perjury in the entire nation has been filed.
Before making outlandish claims, maybe you should "think" first. Without even looking anything up, Little Kim & Martha Stewart cases happened in the past few years. Will your next claim be that only celebrities have been charged with perjury over the last years.