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

Re:Excellent

[renehollan]

About three years ago, I remember anti-drunk driving ads in Ontario that we supposed to serve as a deterrent: Driving drunk in Ontario gets one a year in jail, and the ads insinuated that one would quickly become Bubba's "girlfriend".

Of course, given that Canada does not have constitutional prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishment", this isn't surprising. (Then again, given the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian constition it doesn't effectlively restrain the government from anything, and don't give me that "but they never abuse it" crap.)