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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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