RIAA Loses Bid To Keep Revenues Secret 229
Posted
by
timothy
from the but-your-honor-that's-our-secret-recipe-for-money-soup dept.
from the but-your-honor-that's-our-secret-recipe-for-money-soup dept.
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.'"
cracks in the dam (Score:5, Informative)
Re:cracks in the dam (Score:4, Informative)
Sony, EMI, Warner Bros, and Universal are in real trouble. Make sure you check http://riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com] [riaaradar.com] to make sure when you purchase music you don't buy anything from these companies that fund the RIAA.
Well most of their recordings are sold under their affiliate labels, with different names. But so long as you check it out at http://riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com] if they say it's cool, it's cool. If they say it's RIAA-tainted, stay away.
Re:I wonder if ... (Score:3, Informative)
That part is standard practice, and I doubt they're worried about the artists finding out since they're the ones who draw up the contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org]
Re:But Sir (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt? (Score:2, Informative)
IANNYCL, but the awnser is no. A protective order does not prevent your opponent from using the information produced as part of the trial, it keeps your opponent from sharing the information outside the context of the trial.
Judge Gertner was not happy here because the plaintiffs' lawyers moved for a protective order, arguing for protection of a subset of the information, but gave her a proposed protective order [uscourts.gov] (login and $0.72 required) with much broader scope. For example, it allowed for documents previously produced to be retroactively protected:
The Judge still gave them a protective order, but it was more limited than their proposed protective order. In particular, she didn't provide for protection of their revenue figures. Perhaps if they ad they shown that they had procedures in place to prevent the revenue figures from getting back to their clients, then she might have been willing to protect this information. But they did not, so she did not.
Re:What are these other documents? (Score:3, Informative)
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?"
That's non-controversial. It refers to the agreements with recording artists, other record companies, etc.
Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Yep, that's why there's still no Forrest Gump 2 (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump#Author_controversy [wikipedia.org]
Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt? (Score:3, Informative)
If I understand GP, he isn't saying that the robust protective order would have been a bar to asserting fair use, he is saying that the appropriate sanction for failing to produce the required evidence would be to dismiss the case
Correct. I was asked if they should be held in contempt for failing to produce the summary on the date they were ordered to do so. I indicated that were I the Judge, I would not have held them in contempt, but would have dismissed their case.
Re:Is this Legit, or Contempt? (Score:3, Informative)
Be nice. NYCL has a viewpoint and he likes to express it loud and clear, but accusations regarding professionality are uncalled for.
Attorneys have a number of ethical duties, and many of these submissions either contain outright false statements or other distortions of the very same caliber complained against in those very same submissions. Just because he happens to be on your side doesn't mean he's free from obligations to comport himself in compliance with the rules of professional responsibility, especially since he does practice in this area. It is highly unprofessional to speak out from a position of influence gained by being a professional in a way that is biased, sensationalized, hyperbolic, or incendiary. Everybody gets knocked for it from time to time, and NYCL has been flirting with ethical standards quite a bit these past few months. What's uncalled for is the blind devotion and defense of a local "celebrity" just because he lends his voice to a popular viewpoint.
In the summary itself, it indicates that their motion was "denied". It wasn't. It was granted in part and denied in part, which is a common outcome. In fact, reviewing the order, you see that they in fact got just about everything they argued for. They didn't get the freebie they put in the proposed order. That's hardly surprising, and it's certainly not a denial of their request.
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.
It very likely was vetted. Proposed orders are just that: proposed. You don't get more than you ask for, and it's not uncommon for litigators to ask for more than they could support in their argument. What you see really just appears to be zealous advocacy and an attentive judge smacking down their overstatement. There's no deceptive behavior in that--there's no indication of deceptive behavior, except that it's the RIAA so automatically they're on their heels and NYCL gets praise for taking easy pot shots at a thoroughly unlikeable party.
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.
Did you read the motion and the order? They got everything their arguments supported, which is exactly the way it's supposed to work.
Re:Come on Ray! (Score:4, Informative)
So far they have dropped them with prejudice.