Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Napster Legal Battle Reaches from Beyond the Grave

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the yes-that-napster dept.

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.'"

2 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Forfeit copyright? by Verdict · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Forfeit copyright? by erbmjw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.