Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Moves To Keep Revenue Info Secret

Posted by Soulskill on from the yes-your-honor-it's-100k-per-cd-trust-us dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the Boston, Massachusetts case SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Court had ordered the RIAA to produce certain revenue information, which would be relevant to a determination of the 'fair use' defense. The RIAA has now moved for a protective order to keep the information 'confidential.' In the opinion of the undersigned, the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary' would be unfounded, and the sole purpose for making the motion is to keep the information out of the hands of lawyers for other defendants, thus increasing the defense costs in other cases."

130 comments

  1. isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyway to push that so that the Feds look at this as part of of an Anti-Trust investigation.

    1. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be if it were used to maintain their market dominance or if it were used to harm the consumer by controlling aspects of the market to keep prices high or to keep prices lower than alternatives.

      This is about the [ab]use of the legal process. There are other laws regulating that, but at the moment, using the legal system the way the RIAA does is rarely if ever punished. It is unfortunate but there are reasons for being reluctant to make changes or take measures against abuses of the legal process not the least of which would place additional burden, complications and scrutiny on those seeking relief through the legal system and might ultimately lead to preventing some people from being able to seek relief at all.

      The RIAA is an aggressive and abusive entity that is designed and intended to be exactly what it is. Unfortunately, seeking relief from the existence or the activities of the RIAA would be a painfully slow if not impossible task. The act of preventing anyone from participating in the judiciary process of government potentially damages the rights of all. (On the other hand, we already prevent convicted felons from participating in elections or other such things and disbarring lawyers isn't unheard of either.)

    2. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      One alternative would be downloading music for free.

      The RIAAs actions are calculated to force consumers to pay a higher price for retail-boxed music than they would otherwise be willing to.

      E.g. the abuse by the RIAA in the form of excessively high prices and forced bundling of multiple songs into "album" packaging drives consumers towards less-expensive alternatives.

      The RIAA pursues actions which eliminate those alternatives, or make them more expensive by introducing artificial costs and restrictions, for example, by forcing online music retailers to apply DRM to content placed for sale.

    3. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps you're correct in this case, but lawsuits are often direct against music startups in order to bully them into accepting heinous rates or giving away huge amounts of equity. Collusion on that front would definitely be anti-trust fodder.

    4. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would be if it were used to maintain their market dominance or if it were used to harm the consumer by controlling aspects of the market to keep prices high or to keep prices lower than alternatives.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they paid fines twice in the last 15 years or so for doing exactly that? IE, price fixing on CDs? I seem to remember that both times they did so without admitting fault, but I don't think that changes anything.

      I'm not a big "zomg government in corporations' pockets!!" guy, but how many times does one fine a group of companies for conspiring to control market prices before one decides that there's a problem actually needing to be fixed? And how many times can those same people pass up opportunities to try to do something about it before we're left without choice but to question their motives or competency?

    5. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by jank1887 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hard to point to a 'legitimate' alternative, except for maybe the acceptable price for goods as determined by the law of supply and demand. RIAA v. Adam Smith

    6. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by Haley's+Comet · · Score: 1

      If I were you, I would have put on my tinfoil hat, linked in through Tor, and posted AC. The NSA just labeled you a "possible domestic terrorist".

      --
      The Illuminati would kill me, but I'm not rich enough to take notice of.
    7. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better option is to go for the "people" in charge of the RIAA then the layers. I use the term people/human loosely.

    8. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by sgbett · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ahh, but now you've been labelled 'possible terrorist advisor'.

      Oh shit, now I'm complicit too.

      --
      Invaders must die
    9. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what (or where) do these RIAA layers lay?

    10. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but now you've been labelled 'possible terrorist advisor'.

      Oh shit, now I'm complicit too.

      Yes, and that's what they call a "chain of evidence."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, that's exactly what I mean. The RIAA have disingenuously defined the alternative to buying their retail boxed product as illegitimate.

      Whereas previous the Audio Home Recording Act assured consumers of their right to make recordings.

      Obtaining a recording of an individual song from a friend, whether through sneakernet, FTP, Windows filesharing, or other means, is presumably an alternative to buying a very expensive retail boxed album.

      And the RIAA pursues action against that practice.

      Without any regard for the law or fair use, or intended purpose of the download or upload, they assume all peer-to-peer file transfers are infringement, not legitimate, and the worst possible breach of the law.

      A large trust like the RIAA labelling all the alternatives to members (trust certificate owners) as thieves or criminals is among the most extreme forms of monopolistic practice.

    12. Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust by Tom+Smith · · Score: 0

      sounds great in principle, until you realise there are millions of soulless, blood-sucking scumbags (lawyers) in america, and for every one that you kill, two more will pop up to take his place.

      it's not only the riaa that are greedy and wanting to suck every hard earned penny out of the general populace and enslave them all as little more than "renevue producers". most people want that also, as long as they are the ones on top, of even if they are the victim, but believe they have some vague chance to one day be one of those on top...

  2. Seriously... by Enuratique · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans? It's stories like these (that and software patents) that make me want to go to law school. Though I think that's a lot more work than its worth.

    --
    A black hole is where God divided by 0
    1. Re:Seriously... by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't go to law school. Become a legislator. That's the ONLY way any of this can possibly change.

    2. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there a judge alive not willing to put up with these shenanigans?

      Shenanigans? They're not refusing to provide the requested information. They're just asking for a protective order so that certain information is used only for the trial and not disclosed to the public. These requests are commonplace and parties usually agree to them without putting up a fight.

      Consider production of a hard drive in a file sharing case. It is only fair that the copyright owner agree to a protective order limiting what can be done with information discovered (e.g., mp3s found, configuration files, etc.). The information may be relevant to to the case, but it isn't of any legitimate interest to the general public and, but for the law suit, would not be disclosed at all.

      If NYCL was defending someone in a file sharing case and the copyright holder refused to enter into a protective order regarding hard drive contents, don't you think he ask the court to issue a protective order anyway? He'd probably also put up a big public stink about how the copyright holder was acting unreasonably.

      So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?

    3. Re:Seriously... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There are judges not willing to put up with it. They don't oversee the ****s cases though, because like all crafty, well-funded prosecutors the **** can pick the judges for the cases it chooses to prosecute.

      That is, they'll probably concentrate on prosecuting the cases in jurisdictions where they can win, or get cases moved to jurisdictions where it is so.

      Either the judge not-wililng-to-put up with it, will get replaced, voted out after their competitor gets roundabout **** funding, or the presiding judge will mysteriously change their tune after the right persuasion by hired judiciary-influencing agents.

      Judges are no more immune to influences by the right people, than legislators are.

      Sure, there are a lot of judges that can't be influenced by the ****, but the **** will make sure that those aren't the judges that will be presiding over their cases.

    4. Re:Seriously... by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Informative

      So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?

      The RIAA has thousands of cases going on, from threatening letters and settlement offers to actual court actions. The information in this case would be likely to be relevant to large amounts of those cases. We have already seen them make contradictory claims in different cases. It would serve justice and streamline the legal process for their information to be public.

      The info from the hard drives of individual file sharers, however, would only usually be relevant to the case at hand. It would also be egregious privacy violation for that info to be make public and if court enforced, could amount to a 4th amendment violation.

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    5. Re:Seriously... by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?

      Because information used to project authority must always be closely scrutinized, in broad daylight. The file sharers' info is a personal matter.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:Seriously... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The RIAA has thousands of cases going on, from threatening letters and settlement offers to actual court actions. The information in this case would be likely to be relevant to large amounts of those cases. We have already seen them make contradictory claims in different cases. It would serve justice and streamline the legal process for their information to be public.

      The info from the hard drives of individual file sharers, however, would only usually be relevant to the case at hand.

      Well put. But as we know by know, "serv[ing] justice and streamlin[ing] the legal process" are anathema to the RIAA.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    7. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roughly half of congresscritters have law degrees. If you want to be in Congress *AND* have an interest in law, get a law degree.

    8. Re:Seriously... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be fair, at least half of them are mail order degrees.

    9. Re:Seriously... by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?

      Because a corporation is not a person.

    10. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put. But as we know by know, "serv[ing] justice and streamlin[ing] the legal process" are anathema to the RIAA.

      Not really all that well put. All rohan972 did was provide an argument as to why the protective order should not be issued.

      But the question is whether the RIAA, by requesting that their information be protected, are engaged in "shenanigans." Are they doing something they have no right to do?

      The case hasn't really been made, not even by you NYCL. True, the argument for protecting the information was made jointly by four competitors. But, there is no evidence that the underlying information is routinely shared among these competitors. There is no evidence that even the information that they seek to protect is being shared outside the context of this case. I would think that the lawyers here have an ethical obligation to minimize any cross-over exchange of proprietary information elicited through the discovery process.

      The plaintiff companies have the right to argue that their information should be protected. The defendants have the right to argue that the information should not be protected. Coming up with arguments that the defendants can make does not prove that the plaintiffs are engaged in shenanigans by making an argument that they have every right to make.

    11. Re:Seriously... by swillden · · Score: 1

      But the question is whether the RIAA, by requesting that their information be protected, are engaged in "shenanigans." Are they doing something they have no right to do?

      Many things. The ones that come to my mind (and I haven't even followed it closely) are (1) illegally joining unrelated cases, (2) using really shoddy "evidence", (3) intentionally targeting people with little to no ability to defend themselves, and (4) dropping rapidly any suits against people who *do* turn out to have the ability to defend themselves.

      All of these are abuses of the legal system.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Seriously... by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Don't go to law school. Become a legislator. That's the ONLY way any of this can possibly change.

      In the meantime, as a consumer, and provided you still buy music from retail stores, websites such as Amazon or legal download services such as iTunes Store, use this site to make sure you never, ever put another cent into RIAA coffers again. Oh, and spread the word.
      Feeling pangs of guilt for not supporting your favorite artists, who happen to work for a company under the RIAA's umbrella? Go to their concert and/or buy their merchandise, the RIAA doesn't make a dime off that.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    13. Re:Seriously... by deblau · · Score: 1

      It's stories like these that made me go to law school. I am now a practicing patent attorney. And I have to say, the entrenched interests are very strong. Most patent attorneys support strong patent rights, because they earn their daily bread by convincing their clients that their services are actually valuable. This often translates into political advocacy for strong patent rights, with the consequent effect on business that's been rehashed here countless times.

      However, there are groups of us fighting the good fight for balanced patent laws in generalized trade organizations like the American Bar Association and the state bars. Other organizations whose charters are specific to "intellectual property" (like AIPLA) tend to be much more pro-patent and pro-copyright, for obvious reasons.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    14. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones that come to my mind (and I haven't even followed it closely) are (1) illegally joining unrelated cases, (2) using really shoddy "evidence", (3) intentionally targeting people with little to no ability to defend themselves, and (4) dropping rapidly any suits against people who *do* turn out to have the ability to defend themselves.

      None of those things have anything to do with requesting that some of the plaintiffs' information be protected . Just because someone does something bad doesn't mean everything that person does is bad, even if you don't like everything that person does.

      A cop may abuse his wife at home, something that is reprehensible. But, that doesn't mean that every person the cop arrests is innocent.

      Saying that the RIAA does bad things is not persuasive that what they have requested here is bad. Making this argument says more about the accuser than the accused.

    15. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a corporation is not a person.

      For the sake of argument, let us ignore the legal fiction that a corporation is a person. The proprietary information that the corporation holds still belongs to the corporation. And the corporation still belongs to the shareholders. If making the proprietary information public could hurt the corporation, then making the proprietary information public could also hurt the shareholders.

      Why is it wrong for the shareholders (via lawyers working for the corporation that they collectively own) to protect themselves from loss? They're not even trying to withhold the information from the defendants; they're just trying to keep the defendants from tossing the information out into the public.

      Shenanigan: a mischievous or deceitful trick, practice, etc.

      RIAA companies asking the court to prevent defendants from making public properietary information: neither a a mischievous nor deceitful trick, practice, etc.

    16. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because information used to project authority must always be closely scrutinized, in broad daylight. The file sharers' info is a personal matter.

      An interesting thought, but this is about information that the defendants requested to support their own legal theory. This is not about information that the plaintiff companies are trying to use in support of their complaint.

    17. Re:Seriously... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If making the proprietary information public could hurt the corporation, then making the proprietary information public could also hurt the shareholders.

      Not any more than the amount invested in the corporation. Also, if the shareholders didn't want the corporation engaging in constant legal battles, knowing the risks, they have the ability to influence that decision. As such, they should be responsible for their involvement in that they are electing board members that set a direction of litigation. But they can lose no more than they invested, so their losses are finite and proportional. The loss of privacy is permanent and infinite. Once the information is out there on a person, it can never be undone. The most an investor can lose is their investment, and no more, and so they can lose something, but something identifiable, finite, and something they have some degree of control over. I don't see it as a great comparison. Corporations have less to lose, fewer (if any) rights, and seem to be favored greatly in the legal system.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    18. Re:Seriously... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I didn't read carefully enough to notice that the "shenanigans" comment was addressed specifically at the issue of the information release.

      I don't know enough to have an opinion on that. All I can say is that based on their other behavior it would not be at all surprising if this request were unjustifiable. While past (and ongoing) misdeeds aren't an indictment regarding a specific, separate question, they do guide expectations.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. The truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's so secret about this? Oh wait...

  4. Unsurprising by Renraku · · Score: 5, Funny

    Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Unsurprising by scandalon · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Umm...so do adults.

      --
      "Pain is scary."
    2. Re:Unsurprising by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Children throw tantrums and do irrational things to defend their viewpoints as well.

      True, sadly it frequently works for them... Some people never do grow up in that respect.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad thing is, this still applies if the definition of child is "human under the age of 100"

  5. Corporation? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc. If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Corporation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only publicly traded companies have such an obligation.

      I have my own corporation and I don't publish my income and profits to anybody (except the government for tax purposes).

    2. Re:Corporation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If so they have to publish yearly statements of income/profit/loss/etc. If they are faking the numbers, its fraud time.

      You're talking about the SEC filings available through EDGAR. Companies are required to provide a lot of information, but typically at a higher level than individual revenue streams and contracts.

      Take a look at the last annual report for Warner Music Group Corp. Go down to the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS section. Notice how the revenue break down for recorded music is only at the level of "Physical sales," "Digital," and "Licensing"? They're not listing how much revenue they get from songs individually.

    3. Re:Corporation? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to say, "We made $X in the last year," and another to break down that $X to say exactly how much came from each song, how much came from iTunes and how much came from WalMart, and describe exactly where all those numbers came from.

    4. Re:Corporation? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah well if you're claiming losses due to fraud, the court has to know how much you're losing. Otherwise you can just pull numbers out of your ass (like they're doing here).

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Corporation? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Accounting

      They don't make a profit/loss/income.

      They sell everything they have in circles until it appears that there is no money made or a loss on everything.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  6. Why is it.... by forgot_my_username · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had this big huge rant lined up....
    And, then I realized it wasn't going to do any good at all.
    All that's left to do is sigh....


    Oh... and download some music from megaupload...
    :D

    p.s. that was a joke of course! I use other download services!

    1. Re:Why is it.... by jerep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      same here, although after seeing this im tempted to download even more music.. if only today's music didnt suck so much. Maybe without the RIAA and other corporations only in the music industry for profits, we'd get better songs which are actually worth buying.

      --
      Do you D?
    2. Re:Why is it.... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      At this point, I actually agree. I realized that this evil (RIAA and associated companies and "artists") will not be brought down by legal means. They have that domain completely cornered. No, what will bring them down is two things: themselves + fucking pirating their shit (or at least, never, ever pay a dime for any music from the labels, ever.)

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:Why is it.... by cliffski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what?
      You realise the internet is free and that anyone can get an account on myspace or facebook right?
      There is no evil cabal of cackling minions that stop people making decent music. If the RIAA were blown into dust TODAY, no 'new' music would get made that is not already getting made.
      There arent great new indie bands sat there on their awesome songs who have pledged not to release them until the RIAA have died.
      Maybe you just don't like modern music? Join the club, but it's silly to blame this on the RIAA. You are free to seek out indie bands right now.

      I say this as someone who used to be in a band, back in the day that never got signed. We didn't have 1% of the opportunities then that modern unsigned indie bands have now.
      The RIAA promote a lot of souless crap that I hate as much as anyone, but they don't actually STOP me buying the new album by my fave band (Dream Theater). They might not promote them or market them, but there is nothing the RIAA can do to prevent indie bands doing well.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    4. Re:Why is it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dream Theater is a RIAA band, you stupid fucktard.

    5. Re:Why is it.... by cliffski · · Score: 1

      You know what, I couldn't care a fuck. because I like their music, so I buy it, I don't get prosecuetd or sent letters about it, and their CDs have no DRM (I know because I rip them to my ipod on purchase day).
      So why the fuck should I care?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  7. Then they can't "prove" damages by Green+Salad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's merely an assertion of damages. Lost revenue? Prove it.

    1. Re:Then they can't "prove" damages by east+coast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it's merely an assertion of damages. Lost revenue? Prove it.

      Courts assess damages based on no real proof every day. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much a human life is worth. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much the next 30-40-50 years of your life will be worth. If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.

      As for a number? The RIAA is going to bring in marketing bean counters who will twist numbers in all sorts of methods and many, if not all, of these methods will likely be recognized by the courts as valid. You can try to pass down whatever Slashdottian logic you'd like on the verdict but the courts won't hear it and even if they did the lawyers would have a direct answer.

      If these people were as lunkheaded as you all make them out to be the RIAA would have been some half assed collection of labels that haven't been heard of in decades. Granted, their days may be numbered but I bet you good money that today they're still profitable and they plan on staying that way. They're not going to collapse overnight anymore than Microsoft is.

      I'm sorry, but Slashdotters have a way of overestimating some variables and underestimating others. After all, I've been hearing of the death of little rinky dinky SCO for years and it's only in the last few months has it been in it's real final days. Thinking that this organization can be brought down in a few court cases is laughable.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Then they can't "prove" damages by fotbr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.

      By that measure, copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.

    3. Re:Then they can't "prove" damages by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.

      Well....Yeah! So is office equipment.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Then they can't "prove" damages by shewfig · · Score: 1

      If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.

      By that measure, copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.

      Since when has human life helped corporations make money?

      The average corporation makes more money than the average individual. The average corporation can then afford to (through lobbying, etc) influence laws to protect the ability of corporations to make money - whereas the average individual has little influence to protect his/her ability to live, especially when that individual's life comes in conflict with the interests of a corporation.

    5. Re:Then they can't "prove" damages by Jay+Clay · · Score: 1

      The reason we have to roughly estimate the value of human life in dollar amounts is because the variables to assess the value are intangible, not because the variables are private. To further your analogy, if a husband is killed and the wife is suing based upon what the husband would have made, I would figure (IANAL), that the wife couldn't just state it's $10 million a year and then hide any financial statements to verify.

    6. Re:Then they can't "prove" damages by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.

      By that measure, copyright is vastly more valuable than human health and life.

      Great. You just gave RIAA the justification to break down doors and shoot kids with computers on sight.

      No kool-aid for you!

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    7. Re:Then they can't "prove" damages by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe then enough highly-placed people would finally see what the RIAA is up to.

      Then again, they'd probably just require a larger campaign donation to continue to look the other way.

  8. Are they not public companies? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And therefore have to file government reports? I know the RIAA is just an organization, but the members have to file, correct? Or am I missing something?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Are they not public companies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that they are subsidiaries of major corporations, the numbers they have to file publicly are almost certainly not specific enough for what would be wanted in this court case. What's more, the members of the RIAA are masters of manipulating their books in ways that are most advantage for them -- if the lawyers for Tenenbaum are at all incompetent they could ask for information compiled in such a way as to be to their disadvantage. There's really no advantage for RIAA corporations to have these numbers available publicly and it makes sense for them to try to prevent that, even if the numbers are well-cooked.

  9. Wow... by lordofwhee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because that doesn't seem suspicious AT ALL...

  10. Not exactly shocking by seekret · · Score: 1

    Can anyone say they are honestly surprised by this? The government needs to start acting on the citizens behalf and bring the RIAA down already.

    1. Re:Not exactly shocking by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Bwa ha ha ha ha! Oh, wait, you were serious? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Damn, you nearly made me choke on my coke son! Let me explain how the government works. You see they have these little balls of corruption called "congress critters" and the *.A.As bring by their little treason makers...err lobbyists and their big fat checks..err grievances to the congress critter, who after stuffing their pockets like pigs at a trough with these big fat checks...I mean grievances, then say "Fuck the people? Sure pal, anything you say!" and pass laws that are so much total bullshit that even Ray Charles could see the corruption at work.

      So your best bet is to simply ignore the laws. Ignore them and tell everyone you know to ignore them as well. Because you can sign petitions, and start grass root movements, hell start a pirate party here in the USA for all the good it will do you. Because the MSM will simply ignore anyone whom their corporate masters don't approve of, and any D or R that isn't already bought and paid for will get a visit from the big fat check man before he even gets sworn in. Just look at how Obama could run against himself in 2012, since everything he has so far pushed has been 180 degrees from what he ran on. Of course his opponent in 08 could have ran against his 2000 self and not had a single thing in common either. That's the power of the big fat check.

      So you can wish that We, The People would be represented again, just like girls wish for ponies and I wish I was a billionaire king of South America. The simple fact is we just can't compete with legalized bribery when our enemies can write six zero checks as easily as we pay for a stick of gum. sad but true. And if you vote with your dollars they just scream 'piracy" and end up being labeled "too big to fail" and will get your cash handed to them directly by the fed. Isn't democracy great?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Not exactly shocking by Tom+Smith · · Score: 0

      i take my hat off to you sir, that was an awesome statement.

      i think i wept a little as you so eloquently described the way i feel about "government" and politicians. not only in usa, anywhere in the world.

  11. Law 101 by senorpoco · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most judges are grandparents, that is why the 'petulant child defense' works so well. If this fails expect to see the RIAA lawyers holding their breath, throwing things, and kicking the baliffs in the shin.

  12. How does thie help the defense? by mark_hill97 · · Score: 0

    Forgive my ignorance, but how does this help the defense to have this info? It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove. The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help?

    1. Re:How does thie help the defense? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Forgive my ignorance, but how does this help the defense to have this info? It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove. The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help?

      The difference between "it is hard to prove how much the damage was" and "it is hard to prove any damage" is probably significant. If it turns out to be "it seems likely, based on reported revenues, that there has been no damage at all" it could seriously affect damages awarded.

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    2. Re:How does thie help the defense? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Or, "the damages couldn't have been 10% of the revenue these crappy songs generated"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  13. Can the Judge say "maybe"? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?"

    I ask because it seems crazy to me that the judge can rule on how important the information is to their business without actually seeing it, or hearing what the other side has to say about it. (Wouldn't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon?)

    1. Re:Can the Judge say "maybe"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a judge can make such an order temporary, and such an order can be lifted.

    2. Re:Can the Judge say "maybe"? by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can the judge make a ruling like, "Ok, I'll order this information kept secret for now, but in the interest of expediency you have to turn the information over today, and I'll entertain arguments as to why I should or shouldn't allow it to stay that way after the defendant has had a chance to look over the information?"

      The judge can issue an order for en camera review - essentially he get's to look at it first without any promises that it will ever go to the defense. So yes, he can certainly gag it for now and then remove the gag at any time it's petitioned to do so.

    3. Re:Can the Judge say "maybe"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Wouldn't that be ex parte and as such frowned upon?)

      Damned nearly everything they do is ex parte. The judges don't frown. Same with the bullshit of sending reams of "settlement" papers to schools, telling them to dig up the names of the miscreants and deliver the paperwork to the kids. No legally binding authority.

      Want proof? Harvard had the balls to tell the **AA they were choosing not to be unpaid, unwilling agents for the **AA. "Send us properly prepared legal sub poenas if you want any action. Otherwise, thanks for all your oversized pieces of asswipe, of which we are currently in receipt."

      Hah -- captcha = inequity

  14. Dumb question? by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Dumb question? by SignalFreq · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?

      FTA:
      "By July 10, 2009, the Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendant with yearly estimates, beginning in 1999, of the revenues generated by their copyrights in the specific songs for which they intend to prove infringement at trial. They should separate physical and digital music sales and should provide Defendant with a description of the methodology used to arrive at these figures."

      Tax returns would not contain revenue information for each individual song.

    2. Re:Dumb question? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?

      These are public corporations; the information might even be in their filings with the SEC.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  15. Don't let their thugs off the hook by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2, Informative

    The government needs to start acting on the citizens behalf and bring the RIAA down already

    Make sure their lawyers are disbarred as well.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  16. Here's How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two words: Income Tax.

  17. Proprietary...to what business model? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Declaring revenue information proprietary would only make sense if their business model was based on lawsuits.

    And that's just preposterous. ;)

    One caveat (in seriousness) - don't assume that they're trying to keep this information away from defendants. It's quite possible they would like to keep it away from the artists.

    1. Re:Proprietary...to what business model? by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One caveat (in seriousness) - don't assume that they're trying to keep this information away from defendants. It's quite possible they would like to keep it away from the artists.

      Hollywood accounting is well known. It would be interesting to see exactly how different the numbers presented to the individual artists differed from the numbers presented in court. I know of several artists that had top 10 hits in the 60s & 70s that are still waiting for their first royalty check.

  18. Only in america - by unity100 · · Score: 0, Troll

    lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:Only in america - by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the thing: They can refuse to present evidence. However, the act of refusal itself weakens their case.

      Failing to show evidence and refusing to show evidence are two entirely different things.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:Only in america - by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      lawyers can attempt to hide something that is shown as PROOF of damages behind the entire lawsuit, behind the 'private property' bullshit.

      Our system of checks and balances is a little more complex than you're making it out to be. And their refusal will likely cost them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  19. Justifying piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fellow pirates,

    I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.

    Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.

    I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.

    According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.

    I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.

    EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.

    Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.

    Yours truly,
    A fellow Slashbot

  20. FACTS are DANGEROUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "and (2) a number of confidential agreements demonstrating Plaintiffsâ(TM) ownership of certain of the sound recordings at issue in the case."

    ummmm? They don't want to show the title chain of ownership because then an actual assessment of its worth could be accurately made.

    i.e. Ownership has already changed hands so many times for such paltry sums that any jury or judge would see that it is patently ridiculous for you to sue suzie homemaker for $35M for distributing 30 copies free. RIAA arguement that we're 'protecting artists' is COMPLETELY baseless, as we rip artists off spectacularly and on a regular basis. Can't have those details getting out.

    1. Re:FACTS are DANGEROUS by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      It seems we already sold this song once in 1977 for Bee Gees tickets... and then again in 1983 for half a mallomar.

  21. The Relevance of Revenue by westlake · · Score: 0

    Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use."

    To me this looks like the Robin Hood defense.

    Which usually ends with the jury delivering a tar and feathers hand-off of the geek to the Sheriff of Nottingham.

    In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.

    The geek drawing down three to four times the salary of the juror he faces might want to think twice before opening up this particular can of worms.

       

    1. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The commercial value of a copyrighted work is one of the prongs of the fair use test.

    2. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Explain to me why the revenue generated by a copyrighted work has any relevance to the question of "fair use."

      One of the factors used in determining whether something was fair use or not is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".

      I suspect that the defense is trying to show that the songs in question made tons of money, despite the actions of the defendant, and as such this test might favor the defendant.

      I don't know whether or not this will actually *work*, mind you, but it seems to provide a handle to request such information.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    3. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because, a breakdown of actual revenue can likely be used to demonstrate that it is unlikely that any damage occurred at all from the alleged infringement. The use causing financial damages to the holder of the copyright is directly relevant to whether or not the use qualifies as fair use under copyright law.

      Right now the RIAA wants to claim that filesharing hurts them really really bad. They claim it costs them billions of dollars and push for outrageous amounts per individual song infringed (which, even if you accept their numbers and divide it among the tens of millions of shared music copies would never reach even $5 a song let alone tens of thousands). Music is going to be destroyed by this heinous activity, etc, etc, etc. But they are raking in record level profits while every other industry is crashing. The last thing the RIAA wants is for you to see real numbers and details of the methods used to derive them because their numbers are cooked and may be made up entirely.

    4. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

      I think the RIAA is more concerned about the effects of these numbers in the "Court of Public Opinion" than any actual court. Their legal argument might be, "Well, sure, we still made a profit of $X in spite of file sharing, but were it not for illegal downloading, we would have made $X + $Y." The size of the numbers matters legally, but can turn public opinion against them. If you or your corporation makes $50 million a year profit, and then I do something that diverts an additional $10 million away from you, I'm still on the hook legally, though the average citizen might say, "Ah, they're already making 'enough' money -- this hasn't really harmed them." Not long ago, there was public outcry about oil companies posting record profits while gas was approaching $5 a gallon. And more recently, there was consternation about bonuses being paid to already well-off executives of bailed-out companies, even though there were legal arguments for the bonuses to be paid, and the bonus amounts, though sounding excessive to a layperson, were in reality not very much compared to the amount of compensation they had already received. That is why at the grassroots level, there is little sympathy for the Big Boys. Revealing these numbers might not harm the RIAA's case in the courts, but it sure will earn disdain from the average struggling taxpayer.

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    5. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      In a routine civil suit for damages, the jury never gets to hear testimony about the financial state of the plaintiff or defendant.

      These are most definitely not routine suits. Furthermore, the judge is telling them to provide financial data on the specific songs that the RIAA has claimed were illegally distributed, to which they have made an outrageous claim of value and loss of revenue. They opened the door to this, not the defendant, so it sounds pretty reasonable to me, on the surface anyway. But then again, I'm not a copyright lawyer so I'll leave it at that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      the judge is telling them to provide financial data on the specific songs that the RIAA has claimed were illegally distributed, to which they have made an outrageous claim of value and loss of revenue. They opened the door to this, not the defendant

      Actually the judge isn't up to the "excessiveness" issue yet; she ruled that she will revisit that issue only if and when the RIAA gets a jury verdict for statutory damages. Her ruling ordering production of the revenue information relates strictly to the fair use defense:

      However, because the Court has held discovery open on fair use, discovery requests on this subject served prior to June 22, 2009, the deadline set by the Court, are treated as timely. See Revised Scheduling Order at 5 (document # 850). Yet even here the Defendant's late-breaking effort to add the fair use defense, and the imminent trial date reaffirmed today by the parties, necessarily limits the breadth of the available discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Thus, to the extent that Interrogatories 2, 3, and 8 seek information related to the fair use analysis under 17 U.S.C. 107(4) (requiring consideration of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work") , the Court will permit some investigation. By July 10, 2009, the Plaintiffs shall provide the Defendant with yearly estimates, beginning in 1999, of the revenues generated by their copyrights in the specific songs for which they intend to prove infringement at trial. They should separate physical and digital music sales and should provide Defendant with a description of the methodology used to arrive at these figures. The Court will reconsider the need for discovery on any issues relating to actual damages if and when the Defendant's constitutional challenge becomes ripe -- i.e., should the jury award damages against him." (Gaudet, Jennifer)

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    7. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, I think you overestimate the conscience and social awareness of the Facebook generation that provides most of their profits. I'm almost fifty and I've been following the music industry's shenanigans since the late seventies: it's why I stopped buying music from the big four a long time ago. But that's me: I think you'll find that the bulk of people buying music couldn't give a damn where it comes from. We don't care, as a society, where any of the other products we buy come from ... it's one of our failings, actually. I really can't see why people would evince sudden concern over yet another bunch of corporate thugs: all they care about is that they can buy their favorite artist's latest CD or iTunes track.

      Personally, I believe that the reason they're so afraid of this info coming out is that, once it does and it's gone public, it will a. make a lot of their lawsuits harder to win and b. it will be damned hard for law enforcement to ignore them any longer. Right now, they're surviving on security through obscurity: it's common knowledge that they're crooks but nobody really knows the details. Once those are out, they may find themselves swimming in lawsuits, and you can bet your boots the artists they've been "protecting" so vigorously will be at the forefront. And yes, I agree with you that at that point, public opinion will be an issue because lawmakers and Federal law enforcement will have to be seen as "doing something". What they will do, and how effective it wil be, remains to be seen.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by qwerty+shrdlu · · Score: 1

      These may not be the exact same numbers provided to the artists. Hell, these may not be the exact same numbers provided to the IRS. Public disclosure could indeed cause genuine harm to the companis involved.

    9. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      One of the factors used in determining whether something was fair use or not is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".

      I suspect that the defense is trying to show that the songs in question made tons of money, despite the actions of the defendant, and as such this test might favor the defendant.

      I don't know whether or not this will actually *work*, mind you, but it seems to provide a handle to request such information.

      Conversely, the record labels, obviously profitable, use Hollywood accounting to hide those profits. If it ever came out exactly how much cash they were hiding due to said accounting practices, their boards of directors would be headed for jail on fraud charges, tax evasion, etc. You can hide a multitude of sins under enough paperwork...

      And you can bet the record labels are profitable. If they weren't the stockholders would tar and feather the board of directors and run them out of town and replace them by people who would make them prifitable. ONLY thing a corporado fears is a stockholder revolt that takes his cushy job away and makes him actually have to work for a living...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    10. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Public disclosure could indeed cause genuine harm to the companis involved.

      You say this like that's a bad thing. If it's one step closer to destroying Hollywoood accounting, then what's the harm?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    11. Re:The Relevance of Revenue by qwerty+shrdlu · · Score: 1

      Oh, I never said i wouldn't enjoy seeing "genuine harm".

  22. chain of ownership by belmolis · · Score: 1

    Why would ownership of rights be confidential?

    1. Re:chain of ownership by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Why would ownership of rights be confidential?

      It wouldn't be, in a case based upon the alleged ownership of those rights.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:chain of ownership by belmolis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but I meant, why would the owner of rights want to keep that fact confidential, as the RIAA claims to be the case for some songs? I don't see how that would be of commercial advantage. Are we talking about something like Pat Robertson not wanting to be known as the owner of some raunchy rap song? Or is this just RIAA BS?

    3. Re:chain of ownership by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I lose track of the RIAA's cases, but I seem to recall that in at least one instance they failed to demonstrate that they actually were the rights holders, and so didn't have standing to sue. Possibly this is also the case here?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:chain of ownership by Tom+Smith · · Score: 0

      that would be very interesting...

      too bad for all those people who settled out of court for thousands of dollars each... there may have been no case for them to answer in the first place, but they'll never know now...

  23. WTF ? by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the opinion of the undersigned, the fact that the motion is made jointly by four competitors shows that any claim suggesting the information is valuable or 'proprietary' would be unfounded,

    That doesn't follow at all. Competitors would normally agree to not share information in public. It is in all their interests. If they win the motion all their secrets are safe. What point is there in having a competitors secrets if he has yours ? If they were to reveal their secrets, then the data would definitely not be valuable would it. Just making a joint motion does not imply anything, as they haven't shared any data.

    Also, the RIAA is specifically set up to act on those competitors behalf. Of course it will be a joint motion.
    Competitor 1, will you share your data ? - - No.
    Competitor 2, will you share your data ? - - No.
    Competitor 3, will you share your data ? - - No.
    Competitor 4, will you share your data ? - - No.

    Oh the data can't be worth anything then ????

    I hope you have better arguments than that one.

    1. Re:WTF ? by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They probably won't want to make the sales data for specific songs public for a much simpler reason:

      The artists who originally created the music would sue them for fraud because their royalties were paid for a much smaller amount of claimed sales.

      If the music labels simply reported the numbers which they told the artists, the judge would probably see that the claimed damages are way over-inflated. Even if they used the real numbers, their claimed damages would likely seem excessive. So they (the labels) would like to use some outlandish sales data to show that when individual X "made available" song Y, the sales dropped to a thousandth of what it once was and hence justifying the damages.

      Thats what my bet is on.

      --
      No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
    2. Re:WTF ? by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression revenue information was freely available at the end of every couple financial quarter through SEC regulations anyway - is that not the case? :|

    3. Re:WTF ? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression revenue information was freely available at the end of every couple financial quarter through SEC regulations anyway - is that not the case? :|

      Yes, but not for individual tracks, which is apparently what this Judge wants to see.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:WTF ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all of the data is published anonymously then you don't which specific competitor any specific number belongs to

  24. Is it downloading or distribution that is illegal? by chiguy · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I've read it somewhere, but I have forgotten:

    Is downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission illegal? Or is it just the distribution without permission that is illegal?

    Or both?

    I don't recall any instances where they went after someone who just downloaded songs.

    --
    passetspike!
  25. That's interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...care to name a few?

    1. Re:That's interesting... by tinkerghost · · Score: 2
      Howard Tate is the one that I can find right now. 3 top 20 hits on a single album & no royalties.

      Of course to quote Rich Fiscus of afterdawn.com

      Of course, as the artists who are waiting for their cut of the hundreds of millions of dollars collected last year when various online services settled copyright infringement lawsuits can tell you, in the entertainment industry every project officially loses money until the artists' lawyers and accountants prove otherwise.

      You may also want to look into Hollywood accounting.

  26. Problem? by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't see the problem here. I'm sure they have good reasons for withholding the information. It is not like they've done anything untrustworthy.

    --
    My webcomic
    1. Re:Problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because those plaintiffs who are acquitted can sue for a portion of it. That and they're probably lying to the artists on their royalty checks. A particular favorite, the debit for "PACKAGING" of digitally transfered media. (say iTUNES) Just how do you tear open the virtual cellophane and open the virtual jewel case no to mention the horribly expensive virtual hologram? The artists should sue the RIAA for fraud.

  27. Re:Is it downloading or distribution that is illeg by cliffski · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Both, but sensibly they tend to go after uploaders. But if you are in the US, downloading copyrighted material is quite clearly against the law, even though people on forums might love to perpetuate the myth that it's not. It's like the idea that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex. People want to believe it, but it isn't true :D

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  28. Re:Is it downloading or distribution that is illeg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you are in the US, downloading copyrighted material is quite clearly against the law

    Hi, this post is Copyright 2009 anonymous coward(on). Having downloaded my glib attempt at humour (art) you are now guilty of copyright infringement.

    It's like the idea that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex. People want to believe it, but it isn't true :D

    Was it good for you too?

  29. Re:Is it downloading or distribution that is illeg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sigh* is this what passes for intelligence on slashdot?

    Explain to me how reading a public forum post equates to torrenting a hollywood movie?
    Enjoy arguing this bullshit in court kiddo.

  30. copypasta troll sucks a jew nigger dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  31. Evil Cabal? Yup: Payola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no evil cabal of cackling minions that stop people making decent music.

    Perhaps not from making, but certainly from becoming popular. The record industry has been finedfor these abuses in several states.

    1. Re:Evil Cabal? Yup: Payola by cliffski · · Score: 1

      How does this prevent you from starting a band in your garage and promoting it through the net?
      does the RIAA control the tubes?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  32. So the media-corps are lying, greedy so-and-so's? by Tomsk70 · · Score: 1

    I thought Slashdot was a *news* site ;-)

    Just remember folks - home taping is killing music. Honest.

  33. yea by unity100 · · Score: 1

    'checks and balances'. as if it EVER worked in the last 40 years. you americans exaggerate the shit you have here, yet that shit keeps dragging all of you down. this last crisis, it drag ALL of us down.

    --
    Read radical news here
  34. I call bullshit by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    This is a fishing expedition on the part of the respondent. They are going to try to claim that because the songs made X amount of money, their copyright infringement should fall under fair use. However, they can not show that the revenue would not have been greater if the infringement had not occurred.

    All the claimant has to do is show a statistical projection of greater revenue using previous and current data.

    And, even if it is shown that the decrease in revenue was not significant, there are three other considerations for it to be considered fair use.

    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
                      2. The nature of the copyrighted work
                      3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
                      4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

    Let's take a look at the 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law which cites the following examples of what courts have rule is fair use:

    • quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment
    • quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations
    • use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied
    • summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report
    • reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy
    • reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson
    • reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports
    • incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.

    There is no way the purpose and character of the use (which is for "sharing" to prevent having to buy the work and personal use) nor the amount (complete and total use of the work) falls under fair use.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:I call bullshit by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      This is a fishing expedition on the part of the respondent.

      1. There is no "respondent", only a "defendant".

      2. It was the judge , not the defendant, who indicated that the revenue figures were relevant to the fair use defense.

      Are you accusing the judge of going on a "fishing expedition"?

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:I call bullshit by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      can they even prove that infringement took place?

      all the proof they had was the files they allegedly downloaded from the defendants computer. Seeing as how they had the authorization to copy those files from the rights holder, how did infringement even take place?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  35. Don't use self defeating examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like them too, and I have three of their CDs (purchased), but it is asinine to use a RIAA band as an example of how non-RIAA bands can Make It (tm).

  36. Re:Is it downloading or distribution that is illeg by Tom+Smith · · Score: 0

    it's illegal in the sense an individual or an entity (such as a company) can sue you for it, but it is not criminal and the police cannot investigate you for it, cannot arrest you for it and cannot give evidence in their official capacity against you for it either.

    even losing a case for it does not make you a criminal and you cannot go to prison for it (but you can if you get a fine and you do not pay it).

    when people say it is not "illegal" this is obviously what they mean. of course they realise there are property rights arguments, and regardless of whether they agree with those rights or not, they realise there are civil laws protecting them.

    what they are saying is that, despite deceitful assertions by people like the riaa, is not NOT comparable to robbing a bank, or stealing the cd from a shop, which IS criminal.