Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust Case Against RIAA Reinstated
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After Starr v. SONY BMG Music Entertainment was dismissed at the District Court level,
the antitrust class action against the RIAA has been reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In its 25-page opinion (PDF), the Appeals court held the following allegations sufficiently allege antitrust violations: 'First, defendants agreed to launch MusicNet and pressplay, both of which charged unreasonably high prices and contained similar DRMs. Second, none of the defendants dramatically reduced their prices for Internet Music (as compared to CDs), despite the fact that all defendants experienced dramatic cost reductions in producing Internet Music. Third, when defendants began to sell Internet Music through entities they did not own or control, they maintained the same unreasonably high prices and DRMs as MusicNet itself. Fourth, defendants used MFNs [most favored nation clauses] in their licenses that had the effect of guaranteeing that the licensor who signed the MFN received terms no less favorable than terms offered to other licensors. For example, both EMI and UMG used MFN clauses in their licensing agreements with MusicNet. Fifth, defendants used the MFNs to enforce a wholesale price floor of about 70 cents per song. Sixth, all defendants refuse to do business with eMusic, the #2 Internet Music retailer. Seventh, in or about May 2005, all defendants raised wholesale prices from about $0.65 per song to $0.70 per song. This price increase was enforced by MFNs.'"
I think the difference is that Al Capone DIDN'T pay off the right government officials. That's probably not the case here.
These seem to be serious allegations. I hope there's action taken this time.
You mean you hope there's action taken if they are proven to be true, right?
Due process applies to everyone, not just the people we like.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Can't [all major labels' simultaneous royalty] increase (approximately 7%) be explained by typical inflation and justifiably be expected every two years?
Why doesn't it decrease as the cost of producing music decreases? Look at how much it cost to record an album in 1980 vs. now.
It's not the price, it's the collusion. The labels are supposed to be in competition with each other. Slashdot has repeatedly recognized that the business of a business is to make money - by whatever means possible. Without collusion and general agreement in the backrooms and lounges, one or more labels might actually become convinced that giving away lots and lots of music is the true route to fortune. Baen Books has learned that lesson - especially with older books. They release an out of print book, FOR FREE, and people not only start asking for that book, but they purchase even more books by the same author, and/or in the same genre.
In the case of the labels represented by RIAA, everyone is part of the Good Old Boy's club, everyone is in lockstep, with the same program, same menu, same tactics. They have a happy status quo, and no one is about to rock the boat with anything so barbaric as COMPETITION!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Thanks for bringing this to our attention NYC, but if you'll excuse the pun, we've heard this tune before. Suppose that the RIAA loses and is ordered to pay restitution, but instead of cash the court allows the RIAA and its members to "pay" by donating a selection of CDs or downloads of their choice (i.e. their choice of the worst selling items) while valuing them, for the purposes of the settlement, at "full retail" (even though almost none of them actually sell at that price in the real world). What will prevent them from offering an equally "useless" settlement payment, as they have been allowed to do in the past, again this time?
Yawn. The old "if it ain't as bad as the worst evil I can think of, you're just whining about it" argument. It remains invalid.
Sure, these guys aren't murderers, most of them. They're still thieves on a massive scale (mostly from the "talent" they claim to be protecting). They're still willing to sue people into bankruptcy for bucking them. They'd still like to put people in jail for writing computer programs they don't like. They'd still like to ban entire classes of technology to maintain their profits. They're still evil, even if Idi Amin makes them look like pikers.
I assume that your link is to this song, "Don't download this song" by Weird Al.. The song is quite heavy and very obvious critic against RIAA and it's scare tactics of destroying lives because of a few downloaded songs and about how they have the whole legal system (lawyers, judges the police) under their control. The irony of not being able to legally watch the video outside USA is overwhelming.
That is very common, however. For example many TV shows can't be watched online from Europe anymore. Southpark and The Daily Show being two of the many series that you used to be able to watch online for free (and see some commercials) but now need to download from bittorrent. I could of course just use VPN to some host in USA but really... If I need to go through the trouble of circumventing the protections anyway, my interest to pay for a good VPN and watch the ads isn't that high.
Whether or not you are buying a license to listen to music or not is variously debateable depending on how you procured it. For instance if you go to any music store and purchase a CD album no where does it state that you are agree'ing to a license.
Copyright is necessary in some ways to advance our culture and society, but the current state of copyright law is completely out of line with it's orignal intent.