RIAA Loses Bid To Keep Revenues Secret

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's motion to keep secret the record companies' 1999-to-date revenues for the copyrighted song files at the heart of the case has been denied, in the Boston case scheduled for trial July 27th, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The Judge had previously ordered the plaintiff record companies to produce a summary of the 1999-to-date revenues for the recordings, broken down into physical and digital sales. On the day the summary was due to be produced, instead of producing it, they produced a 'protective order motion' asking the Judge to rule that the information would have to be kept secret. The Judge rejected that motion: 'the Court does not comprehend how disclosure would impair the Plaintiffs' competitive business prospects when three of the four biggest record labels in the world — Warner Bros. Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and UMG Recording, Inc. — are participating jointly in this lawsuit and, presumably, would have joint access to this information.'"

Comments

I wonder if ...

[TomTraynor]

I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.

I object!

[Anonymous Coward]

Reede: Your honor, I object!

Judge: Why?

Reede: Because it's devastating to my case!

Judge: Overruled.

Reede: Good call!

Re:I object!

[Em Emalb]

Cop: You know why I pulled you over?
Fletcher: Depends on how long you were following me!
Cop: Why don't we just take it from the top?
Fletcher: Here goes: I sped. I followed too closely. I ran a stop sign. I almost hit a Chevy. I sped some more. I failed to yield at a crosswalk. I changed lanes at the intersection. I changed lanes without signaling while running a red light and *speeding*!
Cop: Is that all?
Fletcher: No... I have unpaid parking tickets.
[groans]
Fletcher: ... be gentle.

Bum: Got any spare change?
Fletcher: Absolutely!
Bum: Could ya spare some?
Fletcher: Yes I could!
Bum: Will ya?
Fletcher: HMM-MMM!
Bum: How come?
Fletcher: Because I believe you will buy booze with it! I just want to get from my car to the office without being confronted by the decay of western society!... Plus I'm cheap! AHHH!

But Sir

[kenp2002]

MAFIAA: But sir we sold 4 million digital downloads and made 2 million in revenue from those downloads.

JUDGE: So your are saying you made about 50 cents each download right?

MAFIAA: Yes sir.

JUDGE: So we can roughly say the value of each download is 50 cents right?

MAFIAA: Yes sir.

JUDGE: So even if we get "Biblical" in damages of 40 fold we are looking at about $20 a track right?

MAFIAA: Errr well....

JUDGE: So for 24 tracks at $20 bucks each Jammie owes you about $480 bucks right?

MAFIAA: You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.

JUDGE: Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one, that's about so that's about $4800 right?

MAFIAA: Sir that isn't enough!

JUDGE: How much is enough?

MAFIAA: IT'S NEVER ENOUGH!!! (Rips off the mask to reveal he's infact a tenticle demon!!)

Re:But Sir

[Colonel Korn]

MAFIAA: You have to take into account everyone that downloaded them.

JUDGE: Ok so lets say 10 people downloaded each one, that's about so that's about $4800 right?

By definition, the average participant in a peer sharing network uploads one copy. There's no way around that. If the actual number of uploads is unknown, the only remotely reasonable assumption for damage calculations is 1.0000000000000000000000000.

Is this Legit, or Contempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ray--if I was ordered by a judge to produce a detailed breakdown of my accounting (say a trial for tax evasion) practices over the past years by 7/31, and on the 31st I came to court with just a "protective order motion" asking that my accounting practices be kept secret...

Wouldn't I be held in contempt?

I mean...I can see producing the motion *with* the information...or...before it...but... tell me why it is these guys appear to have rights in the legal system that everyone else doesn't... More importantly, what piece of paperwork do I have to file so I can ignore court orders like they do and get off scott free?

Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt?

[RIAAShill]

Moreover, the summary is again biased and sensationalized, part of a pattern that shows increasingly unprofessional conduct on the part of the submitter. The RIAA offered a proposed order that was greater in scope than what they had argued for. Had the judge and her clerks read only the moving papers and then just signed the order, the RIAA would have had that order amended upon discovery of the inconsistency. The RIAA actually got the protective order it had argued for--it just didn't get the overbroad proposal they submitted.

Be nice. NYCL has a viewpoint and he likes to express it loud and clear, but accusations regarding professionality are uncalled for. He's not representing anyone in the case or publishing information that one couldn't get through PACER.

It isn't any use arguing what the RIAA would have done had the judge signed off on their prosed protective order. They should have vetted it before submitting it to avoid any appearance of deceptive behavior. Since they didn't, then they deserve a little nose tweaking.

And no, they did not get everything they wanted. The judge refused to protect the revenue information of the plaintiffs. They did seem to get what they wanted with regards to the non-revenue information.

What are these other documents?

[yuna49]

Gertner's ruling states that "[the Court] will, however, order the second set of documents, which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies, shielded from disclosure."

What are these documents, and who are these "third-party artist-owned companies?"

Forcing them to show their hands

[erroneus]

This could be the beginnings of an interesting new strategy against the RIAA. Forcing the RIAA to produce the verifiable truth about various things and to pull their skeletons from their closets and put them on display can likely act as quite a deterrent against RIAA actions.

Still. How is the judge taking their failure to produce the data? Does making a motion instead of producing the data result in an automatic extension somehow? Is this an unwritten part of due process now?

Re:Come on Ray!

[hosecoat]

Spill the beans already, how much are we talking? Anyone down for taking bets?

It's obviously $23,148,855,308,184,500.00

Re:cracks in the dam

[Chris Burke]

But so long as you check it out at http://riaaradar.com/ if they say it's cool, it's cool. If they say it's RIAA-tainted, stay away.

Yeah, not falling for that one again after I was hanging out with an riaaradar.com maintainer and they kept trying to tell me that my pants were RIAA-tainted.

Re:Come on Ray!

[RabidMoose]

Your post, it smells like new meme.

Re:Come on Ray!

[Kabuthunk]

I'm putting my money on "case is dropped, RIAA gets to keep things secret"

Re:Come on Ray!

[Xebikr]

Hard for me to imagine them doing that, though.

Yeah, but they do a lot of things that are hard for me to imagine until they do them.