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."

11 of 130 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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/
  3. 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?
  4. 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 ----
  5. 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!

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.