RIAA Moves To Keep Revenue Info Secret

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."

Comments

isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust

[Dan667]

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

Re:isn't collusion part of Anti-Trust

[erroneus]

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.)

Corporation?

[nurb432]

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

Then they can't "prove" damages

[Green Salad]

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

Can the Judge say "maybe"?

[AnotherBlackHat]

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?)

Re:Can the Judge say "maybe"?

[tinkerghost]

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.

Re:Seriously...

[countertrolling]

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.

Re:The Relevance of Revenue

[shaitand]

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.