Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

RIAA Wants Agreements to Stay Secret 196

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the don't-share-that-either dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among the record company competitors by which they have agreed to settle and prosecute their cases together, by which she seeks to support her Fourth Affirmative Defense (pdf) alleging that 'The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have. ...As such, they are guilty of misuse of their copyrights.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Wants Agreements to Stay Secret

Comments Filter:
  • Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:22AM (#19699249)
    Go Ms. Lindor!
  • Fine. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:26AM (#19699277)
    On our side, we want the lawsuits to be secret. No one will ever know. How about that.
    Kinda makes the effort worthless, doesn't it.

    Doing PR by lawsuit. It'll remain in history, and our grandchildren will be reading about what the RIAA used to do in our days in attempt to keep Earth from spinning.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:31AM (#19699305)
    Tomorrow's headline will read:

    RIAA Sues Satan for Contract Violation
  • Big surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vmxeo (173325) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:52AM (#19699409) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA's strength is spin control. The whole industry is one massive PR machine. In fact, it's the only thing it knows how to do anymore. It's no surprise they're taking the same approach to their legal strategy. Promote pro-RIAA messages and actions as much as possible, suppress anything that's negative. Rinse, repeat.


    Something off topic, but worth mentioning: I appreciate the various members of the legal profession who take the time to breakdown and explain legal cases such as this, people such as Ray Beckermann, PJ from Groklaw, et al... Not only do I have a better understanding of what goes on in the legal world, but I have a little bit better respect for the people and procedures involved. Thanks..!
    • by Alsee (515537) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @12:59PM (#19700249) Homepage
      Once upon a time, spin control in the music industry meant 33 1/3 or 45 rpm.

      -
      • Once upon a time, spin control in the music industry meant 33 1/3 or 45 rpm.

        For the best quality that's what spin control should be, that and 78 rpm. I don't listen to music much anymore however I'd like to get a turntable, if I do then I'll listen to music more, and buying vinyl records. As amazing as it sounds, vinyl records are still being released. A five minute walk takes me to one store that sells new vinyl, and another store is 15 minutes walk. Next would be to find a reel-to-reel tape deck, I

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30, 2007 @10:54AM (#19699423)
    The RIAA has to hope they can get the judge to ignore the Amurao case. Good luck.

    The RIAA says discovery is over. The problem here is that counterclaims can arise as a result of discovery. In that case, it would be unfair to limit discovery to that of the original case. As an example, consider the SCO v. the rest of the world case. SCO was given extremely generous discovery in spite of the fact that they had produced zero evidence. It seems, on its face, that the record companies seem to be acting as a cartel. My wag is that the judge will decide that there is enough smoke to justify the conclusion that there may be fire.
  • by MeanMF (631837) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @11:16AM (#19699563) Homepage
    SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
    12. Plaintiffs are guilty of unclean hands.

    Apparently the RIAA downloads a lot of porn.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jobin (836958)
      It's another strange legal term. Wikipedia knows what it means [wikipedia.org].
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by MLease (652529)
        Say, did something just go, "whoooooooosh"???

        -Mike
      • How is it a "strange" term? The phrase "wash my hands of this affair" and its related constructions stretches back to at least the era of Pontius Pilate 2000 years ago, and I'd be willing to bet he's not the first to have said it (or not the first to have been alleged to have said it, if you lean to that side of the religion debate).
    • by ignavus (213578)
      Naaah, they just don't wash their hands after they go to the toilet (that's "bathroom" for you squeamish Americans).

      I certainly wouldn't want them coming into my court, if I were a judge. Filthy unwashed hands.

      Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww!
  • the sound of every single RIAA member crapping themselves,

    RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

    call me crazy, if they have 90% of the record biz...isn't that a cartel?

    The ultimate goal with all our anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and to give legal online services a chance to flourish.

    yeah, but when your the majority of 'l

    • I've just got to reply to this bit you quoted:

      there is really no excuse for music theft.


      Yeah? There's no excuse for the RIAA's bullshit or their tactics, either, but I don't see them looking to stop any time soon.
  • Examine the Record (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @05:14PM (#19701705) Journal
    Pun unintended, but at least noticed before posting.

    I seem to recall that the specific copyright violations have resulted in the specific rights holders (ie. individual record companies) being listed as plaintiff on the cases involving violation of their copyrights, with those violations and rights being specifically listed in the filings. As such, the RIAA, and by extension its other members, are not attempting to sue collectively for the rights violations. This claim contradicts that, which is easily found in the collection of suits and pre-suit collection attempts.

    This claim will fall apart based on this evidence. The rest of it will be moot, as it is not illegal to actively pursue settlement collectively as long as specific individual instances of damage are not claimed when they don't occur. This is the basis of class action suits. Suits brought by trade unions on behalf of more than one of its members for a specific complaint similar to each v. a specific company would perhaps be a more apt example.

    As to why the RIAA would then attempt to block it: delaying tactic. They are trying to cause this case, as they have with many others, to be as costly as possible for the defendant to pursue. Their collective purse, paying the RIAA's attorneys, is much larger than any defendant's, and they're simply trying to price the case out of existence.

    As much as I'd like to see the RIAA and its members hung using their own intestines if not vas deferens, I think there's a gaping hole in the tactic being attempted here. If the agreements the RIAA seeks to block discovery of contradicts this in some way, great. But the individual suits as filed, used as their evidence in defense, indicate the opposite and makes it unlikely those agreements will get examined due to this action. It could even backfire. A request for discovery without the claim that they're tying their rights to each other, perhaps brought separately by one of the RICO countersuit v. RIAA plaintiffs, might have been a better idea. Now the RIAA is warned, can delay, and can alter any agreements that might have supported it by superseding them with newer ones that don't have this problem. The old ones would still exist, but would be evidence of this claim in the past, not of claims that this is how things are being done in the case that resulted in the claims.

    No, I'm not a lawyer. But I did work on behalf of some in collecting evidence and acting as witness in some intellectual property cases.
     
    • by guruevi (827432)
      You're comparing apples to pears here, a union or an organization like the ACLU is there to protect it's members against Bad Things(tm) and is either government based or a non-profit organization or otherwise and tries to find a solution for a large number of people equally and evenly that might not have the power or money to fight for themselves individually (class-action).

      The suits that were brought against this person were brought as a collusion of for-profit corporations that (should) have the goal to c
      • by DynaSoar (714234)
        > You're comparing apples to pears here, a union or an organization like the ACLU is there to protect it's members against Bad Things(tm) and is either government based or a non-profit organization or otherwise and tries to find a solution for a large number of people equally and evenly that might not have the power or money to fight for themselves individually (class-action).

        I don't dispute that. The RIAA stuff is as different from both of those as they are from each other. But legal precedent is based
  • just like homeland security, mi5 or any other secret service. guys, this really got out of hand. if you people at u.s. lighten up and turn this woman's lawsuit into a class action lawsuit, you can stem the tide in this charade.
  • "The RIAA is opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among the record company competitors by which they have agreed to settle and prosecute their cases together, by which she seeks to support her Fourth Affirmative Defense (pdf) alleging that 'The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into

    • Gasp...gasp...gasp You couldn't break it up into smaller sentences, eh?

      I agree. I actually thought of that after it was accepted and published. I should have written it as follows:

      The RIAA is opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among the record company competitors by which they have agreed to settle and prosecute their cases together. She seeks these agreements in order to support her Fourth Affirmative Defense (pdf) that 'The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy,

  • wish Beckerman would explain his motions and the counter motions, or that /. would get a lawyer to explain this crap in their summaries, because, to me, it looks like the RIAA counter motion would win, but IANAL.
    • wish Beckerman would explain his motions and the counter motions

      Ms. Lindor has a defense that the record company competitors have colluded together, combining their copyrights by suing and settling together instead of seperately.

      She wants a copy of the agreement or agreements by which they have agreed to work together, so she can show it to the jury at the trial.

      Normally under US law competitors are supposed to compete, not make secret agreements not to compete.

  • Seriously.... how is it that the RIAA is coming to operate according to the standards set forth by organized crime bosses? Or better yet, HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GETTING AWAY WITH THIS?

    Yes, I'm shouting. That's how outrageous this situation has become. Are they going to keep going to see just how much they can get away with? I could make some sort of joke about the RIAA ordering hitmen to whack music-loving college students, but I fear that we're inching closer and closer to that every day...

    (I'm not imp
  • Imagine there's no copyright
    It's easy if you try
    No RIAA below us
    Above us only sky
    Imagine all the people
    Living for today

    Imagine there's no Sony
    It isn't hard to do
    No music to steal or pay for
    It's all free to you
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace

    You may say that I'm a dreamer
    But I'm not the only one
    I hope someday you'll join us
    And the world will be as one

    Imagine free forever
    I wonder if you can
    No need for greed or DRM
    A brotherhood of man
    Imagine all the people
    Sharing all the world

    You may say that I'm a d

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".

Working...