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.'"

Comments

Forfeit copyright?

[Verdict]

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?

Re:Forfeit copyright?

[erbmjw]

IMNAL but I think that the defendents(Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman) are attempting to argue that criminal conspiracy took place.

In which case the RIAA member companies who participated in this action should find their properties (copyrighted music) to be forfeited in the similar manner that a drug smuggling operation would loose properties.

So then the arguement could go that any music that was covered by these RIAA companies copryrights at the time of these attempted criminal efforts becomes null or is handed over to the DoJ for auction. Furthermore I beleive that none of the RIAA companies involved in this action would be allowed to participate nor fund partners/outside interests in this possible auction.

Copyright on new{newer} music should still be covered/enforcable.

Re:Forfeit copyright?

[iminplaya]

So then the arguement could go that any music that was covered by these RIAA companies copryrights at the time of these attempted criminal efforts becomes null or is handed over to the DoJ for auction.

Absolutely not. The material should into public domain, from which it was stolen. This is the only suitable type of punishment for corporate crimes (besides revocation of their charter). Fines and jail time are stupid, and do little more than raise the price of the product.

Re:Forfeit copyright?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... In which case the RIAA member companies who participated in this action should find their properties (copyrighted music) to be forfeited in the similar manner that a drug smuggling operation would loose properties.

So then the arguement could go that any music that was covered by these RIAA companies copryrights at the time of these attempted criminal efforts becomes null or is handed over to the DoJ for auction.

As I understand it (IANAL) this predates RICO and is part of antitrust. 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.

If that happens in this case it will be a double blow to the RIAA. The artists / industry created/used-the-services-of the RIAA to enforce their copyrights and collect their royalties. If doing so makes the copyright go away because the RIAA screwed up, they'll be seriously burned. Their "properties" gone.

They'll certainly think twice befor letting the current RIAA and/or its current administration handle any more of their works, or when setting up a replacement for it or a strategy for doing their own enforcement.

Just remember . . . Martha Stewart was set up.

[mmell]

(Federal prosecutor): "Ms. Stewart, you've been granted immunity in these proceedings so that you can inform on your associates without fear of being prosecuted for whatever you've done. Please tell us all your illegal activities."

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!"

You can bet...

[Billosaur]

During the DoJ investigation, EMI and UMG apparently misled the investigators about these activities. In the words of Judge Patel: "[T]he documents provided by Hummer provide reasonable cause to believe that the statements in the [labels' report to DoJ] were deliberately misleading, if not completely false."

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 ... finds reasonable cause to believe that the attorney's services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme." The labels have 30 days to comply. Stay tuned.

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.

Re:You can bet...

[statusbar]

I'll believe that there have been ANY successful blows against the RIAA when those articles you link to are shown as news on cnn. Articles in p2pnet and blogs do not matter. The RIAA is pretty good at their own public relations and political contributions.

--jeffk++

Been Caught Lyin'

[digitaldc]

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?

Re:Excellent

[mgabrys_sf]

I suggest the same punishment that should be executed for sernior al-queda members - if we don't blow them up with Preditor drones first.

Slice the body into small chunks and place said-chunks into glass molds for keepsakes and paperweights. It's a great conversation piece and would defray the cost of body disposal. No muss no fuss and my papers stay on the desk where they belong.

Why should snake heads and scorpions have all the fun?

What's the big deal about lying?

[shark72]

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").