Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download 305

Posted by kdawson
from the treble-damages-are-for-wimps dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Court has ordered UMG Recordings, Warner Bros. Records, Interscope Records, Motown, and SONY BMG to disclose their expenses-per-download to the defendant's lawyers, in UMG v. Lindor, a case pending in Brooklyn. The Court held that the expense figures are relevant to the issue of whether the RIAA's attempt to recover damages of $750 or more per 99-cent song file, is an unconstitutional violation of due process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download

Comments Filter:
  • by nilbog (732352) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @12:35AM (#21488773) Homepage Journal
    Oh don't worry, they'll come up with a way to justify the cost.

    "See, we have a team working full time copying the bits by hand."
  • obvious (Score:3, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @12:50AM (#21488859) Homepage
    The Court has ordered UMG Recordings, Warner Bros. Records, Interscope Records, Motown, and SONY BMG to disclose their expenses-per-download

  • by flyingsquid (813711) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @12:52AM (#21488873)
    I just don't get it. Damages of $750 dollars for downloading a song? Let's be reasonable. I mean, I hate Celine Dion as much as anyone but I don't think the RIAA should be forced to pay more than $500 for every time I download one of her MP3s.
  • by mcpkaaos (449561) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @12:54AM (#21488879)
    No, but you should.
  • by The Evil Couch (621105) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @01:08AM (#21488979) Homepage
    Just out of curiosity, has anyone on Slashdot been on the receiving end of an RIAA suit, or possibly a lawyer dealing with a client who has been? Or not even directly involved, but just know someone who's been through this ordeal?
    Is there an existing repository for information like this, or is it time people like us Slashdotters created one?

    The story submitter is a Slashdotter/lawyer [slashdot.org] who has a site dedicated to this sort of stuff [blogspot.com]. Of course, for legal advice that's not technically advice, I pay attention to whatever cpt kangarooski [slashdot.org] has to say. Because he has a cooler name and a lower UID.
  • 750 (Score:5, Funny)

    by NetNed (955141) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @01:30AM (#21489093)
    RIAA:"It's 70 cents for the song and $749.30 in cost of PR for restoring faith of our customers/artists/record labels"

    Judge:Are you sure?

    RIAA: "Ok, it's really 70 cents for the song, $749 for lawyers and $.30 in PR"

    Judge: Come on now?

    RIAA: "Alright, it's $.03 for the song, $200 for lawyers and $549.97 for your reelection campaign and all the free downloads of "The Gap Band" you can handle? How's that sound judge? Judge? Judge? Is this thing on?"
  • Re:$750 (Score:5, Funny)

    by wickedskaman (1105337) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @02:18AM (#21489345) Journal
    This is one of the most honest and unbiased assessments of the whole copyright issue I have ever seen on Slashdot. shark72, you have obviously reached a higher echelon that is beyond the reach of this site's populace. Go! Leave us to our one-sided demise and forge new hopeful alliances to spread your even-handed message!
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @02:20AM (#21489359)
    I asked my crystal ball (my magic 8 ball is in the laundry, sorry), and here's what we got.

    RIAA lawyer: "You asked for the reason of asking for 750 dollars per song shared, and here's the result:

    70 cents per song earned.
    An average of 1100 downloaders per song and per source.
    That would net about 770, we rounded down in favor of the defendent."

    Judge: "I see. And where do you get those numbers? The 1100 downloaders per song and source?"
    RIAA lawyer: "Statistics" (slams five pounds of paper onto the judge's desk."
    Judge: "I see. But wouldn't after some time a saturation set in? With everyone feeding 1100 downloaders, and each of them again feeding 1100..."
    RIAA lawyer (pauses): "Indeed. Well, then let me also file against the defendent for running a pyramid scheme."
  • by Thanshin (1188877) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @02:32AM (#21489415)
    Remember Minority Report? The wooden balls?

    Those held a single name. Imagine the size of the balls you'd need to record an entire song.

    Movie makers; they have the biggest balls in the industry.
  • by Dragonslicer (991472) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:33AM (#21490741)

    So a reasonable compromise would be to taser them in the nuts every time I download a song by Celine Dion.
    I would say the same should happen to you, but if you're downloading Celine Dion, you obviously don't have anything there to have zapped.

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?