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."
Anyway to push that so that the Feds look at this as part of of an Anti-Trust investigation.
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
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?
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 ----
I had this big huge rant lined up....
:D
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...
p.s. that was a joke of course! I use other download services!
it's merely an assertion of damages. Lost revenue? Prove it.
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.
Because that doesn't seem suspicious AT ALL...
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.
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.
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?)
Dumb question here, but why not look up the tax returns they've filed with the IRS?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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/
Make sure their lawyers are disbarred as well.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
Why would ownership of rights be confidential?
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.
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!
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I thought Slashdot was a *news* site ;-)
Just remember folks - home taping is killing music. Honest.
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.
'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
Or, "the damages couldn't have been 10% of the revenue these crappy songs generated"
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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.
Oh, I never said i wouldn't enjoy seeing "genuine harm".
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.
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:
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.
Of course to quote Rich Fiscus of afterdawn.com
You may also want to look into Hollywood accounting.
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