Napster Legal Battle Reaches from Beyond the Grave 131
neelm writes "The EFF is reporting that EMI and Universal Music Group may have been caught lying to the Department of Justice in the 2001 antitrust investigation involving MusicNet, and pressplay. The 2001 investigation found no evidence of illegal efforts to monopolize digital music distribution, but new evidence presented by Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman ("original napster" investors) in their on-going defense from the RIAA suggests otherwise. The judge ruled that the documents to be turned over were not protected by attorney-client privilege because '[the court] finds reasonable cause to believe that the attorney's services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme.'"
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Just remember . . . Martha Stewart was set up. (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, I learned real young - don't cop to anything until you know what the other guy has on you. Never.
In effect, the fed has found a really neat way around that pesky fifth amendment. Just offer you immunity - even if you don't admit all of your crimes (and who would?), you may let slip evidence which will let them come get you, all the while screaming "Your fifth amendment rights were not abridged! You incriminated yourself!"
Re:Just remember . . . Martha Stewart was set up. (Score:2)
Surely while under immunity you'd want to admit to everything because double-jeopardy laws (or something to that general effect) would prevent them from going after you on any of it.
Re:Just remember . . . Martha Stewart was set up. (Score:2)
And it's very hard to 'admit everything' when, like Stewart, the 'crime' you're accused of is so ill-defined that teams of lawyers can study it in depth and still have difficulty agreeing on which actions it actually criminalises and which it doesn't.
Re:Just remember . . . Martha Stewart was set up. (Score:2)
On the face of it, that seems logical. BUT, that does not prevent folks from using that information you provide under immunity against you in a civil action.
Bottom line, you might be able to avoid jail, but you might lose
No, talking about real immunity. (Score:2)
Re:Just remember . . . Martha Stewart was set up. (Score:2)
Re:Just remember . . . Martha Stewart was set up. (Score:2)
I.e. imagine that you are tried in federal court for a murder, and let off after evidence surfaces implicating someone else. So after you are freed, someone else is tried for that crime and found guilty. But an overzealous state prosecutor charges you for the same crime in state court (maybe he doens't believe you are really innocent) while the above case i
Re:Excellent (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Funny)
You're correct of course. Tarring, feathering setting on fire and hanging is the appropriate punishment.
By the way, which label do you work for?
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Funny)
That seems unecessarily wasteful.
How about using the offenders as filler in highway repaving projects?
I'm driving on sunshine, woahoh, and don't it feel good!
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
Re:Excellent (Score:1)
I'm highway filler you insensitive clod
(or something equally stupid)
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Interesting)
Slice the body into small chunks and place said-chunks into glass molds for keepsakes and paperweights. It's a great conversation piece and would defray the cost of body disposal. No muss no fuss and my papers stay on the desk where they belong.
Why should snake heads and scorpions have all the fun?
Re:Excellent (Score:1, Offtopic)
Of course, given that Canada does not have constitutional prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishment", this isn't surprising. (Then again, given the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian constition it doesn't effectlively restrain the government from anything, and do
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
Perhaps, but this requires some creative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to make it "O.K.". Canada doesn't even have such a prohibition in its.
A constitution is just words on paper, of course, and without force, if the population does not take it to heart. But, it is far easier to muster up the courage to stand up to an oppressor if the oppressor claims to respect a con
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
Neither do the guys in the federal prisons getting raped as we speak. What's your point?
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, in America, anal rape in prison is considered funny and part of the punishment for whatever crime commited. I'm not entirely sure why anal rape is considered an acceptable part of prison and consensual anal sex is considered illegal (which is rather ironic - get convicted of having consensual anal sex, get sent to a prison where it's expected that you'll get anally raped).
But, it's just another part of America's messed up culture on sex - sex is OK as a punishment, but must be bad if it's consensual. See, 'cause enjoying things is bad, according to some interpretations of the Bible.
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:2)
And Office Space is a friggin' great movie.
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:2)
"Office Space" was an awful movie. "Head Office" (from the 80s) was much better and had an all-star cast (Moranis, Devito, Reinhold, etc) rather than the annoying girl from Friends. It's even available on DVD. Or maybe on P2P (he says in a vain attempt to be on-topic).
But really, do we expect any of these EMI + UMG guys to do time over this? I don't. Seems like the most likely outcome is that the civil suits in question will end up dropped. The people who made the actual statements will probably pass the
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:3, Informative)
last i checked... where is it considered illegal in the US? Just recently in Texas anti-sodomy laws were struck down.
Besides, if that were true, half of my porn collection - completely devoid of man-on-man action - would be illegal. Heck, even some of the girl-on-girl action would be illegal ;)
How about (Score:3, Insightful)
b) People make fun of what they fear. Personally being analy violated is a rather fearsome prospect to me, but if it were brought up I'd probably joke about it. There are many similar jokes based on a similarly macabre sense of humour.
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:5, Funny)
What's with geeks and "pound me in the ass"?
It's from the movie "Office Space". Sorry, but your fantasies about anal sex with geeks will have to go unfulfilled.
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:1)
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:3, Funny)
Napster Zombies? (Score:1)
Re:Napster Zombies? (Score:2)
I hope not. It was way too insecure. The RIAA may not go after the Nap after this, but uploaders will still be targeted. You need something much more secure.
The RIAA might be lying? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The RIAA might be lying? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but now we got PROOF.
Re:The RIAA might be lying? (Score:2)
Yeah, and that and $.99 will buy you an iTune.
Just what do you expect to happen with this "proof?"
Forfeit copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
The part that interested me is -
"that the RIAA companies forfeited their copyright claims thanks to their coordinated and illegal effort to monopolize digital music distribution"
What exactly do they mean by forfeiting copyright claims? Surely they don't mean that the members of RIAA would lose their copyright over their music? They've got senators that kill those sorts of laws don't they?
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
In which case the RIAA member companies who participated in this action should find their properties (copyrighted music) to be forfeited in the similar manner that a drug smuggling operation would loose properties.
So then the arguement could go that any music that was covered by these RIAA companies copryrights at the time of these attempted criminal efforts becomes null or is handed over to the DoJ for auction. Furthermore I beleive that none of the RIAA companies involved in this action would be allowed to participate nor fund partners/outside interests in this possible auction.
Copyright on new{newer} music should still be covered/enforcable.
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely not. The material should into public domain, from which it was stolen. This is the only suitable type of punishment for corporate crimes (besides revocation of their charter). Fines and jail time are stupid, and do little more than raise the price of the product.
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
So then the arguement could go that any music that was covered by these RIAA companies copryrights at the time of these attempted criminal efforts becomes null or is handed over to the DoJ for auction.
As I understand it (IANAL) this predates RICO and is part of antitrust. Basic take is that i
Do antitrust laws apply to copyright anymore? (Score:1)
this predates RICO and is part of antitrust.
RICO was enacted in 1970 [wikipedia.org]. Anything enacted before RICO may have been superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976.
Basic take is that if you use copyright as a tool to violate antitrust, the copyright on the material in question vanishes and it becomes public domain.
This may have applied prior to 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, but too many provisions of 17 USC chapter 1 [copyright.gov] have the phrase "Notwithstanding any provision of the antitrust laws".
Re:Do antitrust laws apply to copyright anymore? (Score:2)
That smells like the tracks of a legislative hack to repeal the portion of the antitrust laws that penalize misuse of copyright without appearing to repeal them.
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:1)
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:2)
The results of such class action suits could overturn the previous judgements/settlements and force them to pay back the people{groups} involved. But before any o
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:2)
Of course, IANAL
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
The EFF post is engaging in a bit of worst-case-scenario hyperbole. If Judge Patel is having a "Maximum Marilyn" kind of day, the RIAA cartel could forfeit the copyrights themselves. More likely, they'll just forfeit the claims made against Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman, since those claims were part of the plan to extend the cartel's control to online services, at the expense of the free market.
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:2)
If there are any left, that is. Gotta be fast if you wanna have a senator, everyone wants one these days.
Most interesting nugget for me... (Score:2)
The record labels, you see, are still pressing their case against Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman for investing in Napster years ago.
Re:Most interesting nugget for me... (Score:2)
--jeffk++
Napster: Beyond the Grave (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Napster: Beyond the Grave (Score:2)
It doesn't work very reliably. All those people who advocated death penalty for script kiddies are coming to realise it was a bad idea. Whenever I try to chat with hot babes with my Ouija board, I just get a flood of SYN SYN SYN. No matter where you go, IRC (Internet Rigor-mortis Chat) is always subject to a DDOS. (Dead Denial Of Service Attack)
Poor Jesus... He died for their SYN floods.
Re:Napster: Beyond the Grave (Score:2)
Slap these companies up side the head, HARD!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies should have something severe as a punishment, like serious jailtime for the offenders and big fines for the corporation.
Although the current justice dept will probably just put them in the proverbial "time-out" then give them a cookie.
Make an example out of a couple of them.
The government should have the will to reject a corporation's charter for shit like this.
Re:Slap these companies up side the head, HARD!!! (Score:2)
Re:Slap these companies up side the head, HARD!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies today believe they can act with impunity and they need to be shown otherwise.
Re:Slap these companies up side the head, HARD!!! (Score:2)
Re:Slap these companies up side the head, HARD!!! (Score:2)
The politicians are in the pockets of the corporations.
You can bet... (Score:5, Interesting)
The judge has ordered UMG and EMI to hand over previously withheld documents relating to the DoJ investigation, overriding the attorney-client privilege because "the court
I suspect that right now some law firms are watching their reputations take a serious hit. The RIAA is on a rampage and at every turn they do even more damage to their reputation; this is going be another big black mark. If we wait long enough, they will destroy their own cause with all their dirty tactics and outright lies. I'm gonna get some popcorn -- this will be fun to watch.
Re:You can bet... (Score:1)
Let's be carefuel calling this a victory of any type.
Re:You can bet... (Score:2)
And yet cases are going against them, and further lawsuits are being brought against them, in their overzealous pursuit of profit:
Re:You can bet... (Score:3, Interesting)
--jeffk++
Re:You can bet... (Score:2)
Reputations?
They aren't worried about their reputations, they're worried about their licenses.
Honestly, those lawyers are probably toast, even if the RIAA gets off lightly. It seems like they've violated so many of their ethical obligations that they're going to get disbarred.
Then they'll have to worry about civil/criminal proceedings, depending on how successful the Napster guys' lawsuit is.
Re:You can bet... (Score:1)
Good joke!
Serving the rich and powerful by crushing the weaklings, that's their ethics and they do keep faithful to it. Do not expect any serious punishment. There won't be.
Re:You can bet... (Score:2)
Quirk Objection!
Re:You can bet... (Score:2)
If only that were how it would turn out.
At every turn, they make themselves more hostile to consumers, and do more underhanded th
Re:You can bet... (Score:2)
Secondly even if what you say was true, then it would only create
No Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Big Deal (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called a settlement. Something the cartels do all the time. "Without admitting any wrongdoing". And then we, the customers, tell them, "Very well then. Carry on." And continue to buy their crap.
Do you really think politicians are going to allow major donors to face serious punishment?
Only if they themselves thought that they might get caught in the scheme. Then they would throw them (the "donors") to the
Re:No Big Deal (Score:2)
It's called a settlement. Something the cartels do all the time. "Without admitting any wrongdoing". And then we, the customers, tell them, "Very well then. Carry on." And continue to buy their crap.
The penalty for this type of wrongdoing is to elminate the copyright on the works used in the scheme.
IMHO (IANAL), should the original parties settle, this might give anyone claiming to be attempting to start a d
Re:No Big Deal (Score:1)
an' dat [slashdot.org] too - CB
you don't know a 600 lb gorilla when you see one? (Score:2)
Hummer-Winblad Venture Partners is not two geeks in a basement. It is one of the biggest and oldest software VC companies in the business. What part of "$2 billion under management" would you like me to explain to you? There probably aren't any better-connected tech-related companies in existence, and I'm certain that both the founders and their biggest investors are at least as well connected at the White House and DOJ level than anyone connected with
The problem is Lying and Perjury are not prosecute (Score:1)
Re:The problem is Lying and Perjury are not prosec (Score:1)
Re:The problem is Lying and Perjury are not prosec (Score:2)
The defendents are arguing fraud was committed (Score:2)
Re:The problem is Lying and Perjury are not prosec (Score:2)
Before making outlandish claims, maybe you should "think" first. Without even looking anything up, Little Kim & Martha Stewart cases happened in the past few years. Will your next claim be that only celebrities have been charged with perjury over the last years.
Been Caught Lyin' (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does this not surprise me? Why do I automatically think nothing will happen under this administration? Why is the industry always complaining when sales are actually improving and boosting their stock value? [yahoo.com]
Re:Been Caught Lyin' (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Been Caught Lyin' (Score:4, Insightful)
"This administration" (Score:1)
Now, if there were a way to effect permanent positive change on that model, I'd readily support it...
Hummer Winblad (Score:5, Funny)
No Problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
(sigh)
Re:No Problem (Score:2)
The real issue is copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact copyeight compromizes are the worst thing we could to. It's like the US conolists compromising with the Brits, it's like the slave states compromising with the free states. People who thought it was workable simply were in denial of the real world and real world forces that were in play.
Re:The real issue is copyrights (Score:1)
Regardless, as much as I loathe and dispise the RIAA, I have to ask this question: Lying on documents, and data presented in general. Is it remotely possible that it was a data entry error? Some lowly grunt making $12/hr, and not paying attn to what their doing?
Just a thought...
Re:The real issue is copyrights (Score:2)
They've been awfully free wielding the legal sledgehammer...Time for them to reap the whirlwind.
Re:The real issue is copyrights (Score:1)
Re:The real issue is copyrights (Score:1)
Yeah, every three weeks or so they go out and buy a new computer, only to turn around and sell it the next week....
Re:The real issue is copyrights (Score:2)
IANAL....
I seriously doubt that. If you have these sorts of agreements and representations made to the DoJ, then they are probably scrutinized and/or written by lawyers. I guess if the RIAA wants to pay their lawyers $12/hr that is their business (
Re:The real issue is copyrights (Score:2)
Absolutely, compromise sucks. We should just nuke everybody!!! Koreans, Chinese, Mexico, Iran, liberals, conservatives, Environmentalists, Christians, etc... Compromise is vital. I'm not one to shy away from a fight and I do believe there are times when force is needed to
Napster Killed Filesharing (Score:1)
btw, just because i think Napster w
Monoploy Over... iTunes = Very Yes! (Score:1, Funny)
We all know how MusicNet and Pressplay went on to dominate digital music market...
Re:Monoploy Over... iTunes = Very Yes! (Score:2)
Making the attempt is enough to violate the law - and damage other parties. Success is not required.
It's like murder that way. "But, your Honor! When I swung the axe at him I missed! I should go scott-free!"
Sucess isn't a factor (Score:2)
See the difference (Score:1)
what's in a name? (Score:1, Funny)
Can someone see this happen? (Score:5, Funny)
Judge: This is not the evidence I'm looking for.
Universal lawyer: Universal did not lie to the DOJ.
Judge: Universal did not lie to the DOJ.
Universal lawyer: My client may pass.
Judge: Your client may pass.
Universal lawyer: Case closed.
Judge: (slam) Case closed.
Universal sub-exec: Wow. Is that the Force?
Universal lawyer: Kinda. Down here, we call it "money".
Wait... (Score:3, Funny)
Where there's smoke.... (Score:1)
There's fire.
Where there's fire,
There's documents being burned.
Where those documents are being burned,
There's music executives and lawyers,
Joined hand in hand,
Disposing of any and all evidence.
My guess is any information that would take down the music industry AND their lawyers, is going to be burned/buried or both and we will never see anything.
There's no way they will essentially turn themselves in.
What's the big deal about lying? (Score:3, Interesting)
The reactions here are pretty surprising. The plaintiffs may have lied?
This is Napster we're talking about -- a company that was based on a Big Lie; that they weren't aware that their service was used largely for piracy, or that they they weren't trying to make money off of the large demand for piracy. The "smoking gun" internal emails from Shawn Fanning acknowledging that Napster was essentially a piracy service certainly made that clear for anybody who wasn't able understand the blindingly obvious.
And now we have a case where one set of companies who happen to be members of the RIAA (UMG and EMI) are suing another company that happens to be an RIAA member (BMG) and suddenly lying is a bad thing? And UMG/EMI are the bad guys, and BMG is not, even though they all happen to be members of the RIAA?
My guess is that it's not that Slashdot's readership has suddenly found religion; rather, it's situational ethics at its most extreme. It's OK to lie if you're Shawn Fanning when you say things like "I didn't intend Napster to be used for piracy and we don't want Napster to be used for illegal purposes," since, after all, you're doing a great service for the world by letting teenagers everywhere get lots of free music. BMG gets a free pass here as well; despite the fact that they're a record company, they invested in Napster (see "lots of free music").
It's not just lying{perjury} It's criminal fraud! (Score:2)
Perjury might get you a slap on the wrist, fraud is much more likely to get you in deep trouble. Especially as the lawyers for the plantiffs side seem to have tried to use attorney client privelege to hide their respective clients earlier actions.
Re:What's the big deal about lying? (Score:2)