Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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!
The commercial value of a copyrighted work is one of the prongs of the fair use test.
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.
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?
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?
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
Dream Theater is a RIAA band, you stupid fucktard.