RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Court has ordered UMG Recordings, Warner Bros. Records, Interscope Records, Motown, and SONY BMG to disclose their expenses-per-download to the defendant's lawyers, in UMG v. Lindor, a case pending in Brooklyn. The Court held that the expense figures are relevant to the issue of whether the RIAA's attempt to recover damages of $750 or more per 99-cent song file, is an unconstitutional violation of due process."

Comments

Re:oh don't worry....

[corsec67]

IANAL, but I think the problem is that they would have to show that they were doing that before this request to itemize the costs was made. Otherwise they could make up anything they wanted.

"Yes your honor, we encode the bits into a 1 oz. gold coins and mail them to our other office where they are melted down and made into a plaque for this specific case"

Well..

[Creepy Crawler]

According to the copyright office, damages go from 750$ to 30,000$. Unknown infringement is no less than 200$. Known, willful infringement is no greater than 150,000$. These all are statutory damages.

I guess the next question is to actually ask if these statutory damages are constitutional or not, which is being asked now. Really, what else is there?

Re:This is really slow

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Is it just me or is there a ridiculous number of exhibits and motions in this Lindor case? I count 239 links on Ray's blog just for this one case. I noticed this link from December 14, 2006--a year ago--in which the plaintiffs appear to be stalling on this very issue. The letter makes reference to a hearing from August of 2006. Has this one issue really been going on that long? 1. No it's not just you; it is ridiculous. Ms. Lindor has never even used a computer.

2. It took us 6 months to get the revenue information. Now it's been 4 1/2 months so far to try and get the expense information.