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:Wouldn't it be ironic

[BosstonesOwn]

It's already happening. My neighbors are a couple lawyers. Albeit they are criminal and Divorce , they are saying that most people in their firm are getting crap from judges for bringing stupid patent cases to court.

Thankfully their firm is downtown boston so tons of stupid companies go to them daily. These patent trolls are losing money quickly and it's great to see the RIAA is running into the same issue.

They need to update thier business model or face becoming extinct.

Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music

[MichaelCrawford]

You don't have to pay the iTunes Music Store to download music legally. Many musicians offer free downloads of their music as a way to promote themselves. I'm one such artist. You could really help me out if you shared my music over the Internet.

You can find many other such artists, and free, legal music hosting sites in my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads.

The Slashdot crowd and the RIAA

[NoPantsJim]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone on Slashdot been on the receiving end of an RIAA suit, or possibly a lawyer dealing with a client who has been? Or not even directly involved, but just know someone who's been through this ordeal?

Every time a story like this comes up I read as many comments as I can and think, "Well fuck, if it's this obvious to everyone here that what's happening is out of line and in some cases illegal, why can't that message be communicated more broadly?"

I have an extensive list of information I've been saving from Slashdot just on the off chance I ever get an RIAA letter in the mail (I d/l maybe an album per month, 90% of the time I buy it after listening). If I find myself facing one of these suits, I would immediately turn over to my lawyer everything I've compiled to be sure they're aware of what should be argued and what RIAA claims are total BS.

Is there an existing repository for information like this, or is it time people like us Slashdotters created one?

Re:The Slashdot crowd and the RIAA

[Adam8g]

Yes - My son.

He is a second year student at USC (University of Southern California)

The attorney letter is from Holm Roberts & Owen LLP from their Denver office.

The school passed on the letter and when I called the school's Acting Litigation Manager - was told that the school would pass on student info if a lawsuit is filed and the school receives a subpoena.

To say I am disappointed at the school's passive position is an understatement. California has very strong laws requiring schools to protect the privacy of students - and if there should be legal action would be compelled to act in protecting student privacy.

Since the school has very strong ties with the recording / film industry, and the LA basin is full of attorneys and judges that are graduates, the lawyer I consulted suggested settling.

hummmm

Punitive Damages and Unusual Punishment

[bagsc]

Quoth the Wikipedia "Punitive Damages:"
"statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.[7]

In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional."

If the song costs $1, and punitive damages of $749 are assessed, it's almost certainly unconstitutional. So why should it be legal statutorily?

Re:Nothing "ironic"

[AuMatar]

Except it wasn't lose-lose. CD sales were up during Napster. Studies show those who pirate are more likely to buy cds. File sharing is just free advertising. This abuse of their customers has lost them business (I have not bought a cd in 4 or 5 years due to these lawsuits). The correct strategy was for them to ignore personal copying and go after commercial piracy, but they were too big a control freak to do that.

Re:oh don't worry....

[jamstar7]

Like the phone company did back in the day when they went after some kids for allegedly hacking a 911 system when actually, they downloaded a 'confidential computer text file' reputedly worth over $80k when they were selling copies of it for about 30 bucks. IIRC, they wanted to charge the kids for the cost of the computer system used to create the document, the time logged by the person that typed the document up, plus the salary of said typist's supervisor for the time the typist reputedly spent creating the document.