Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Antitrust case against RIAA reinstated

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) writes | more than 4 years ago

2

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) writes "In Starr v. SONY BMG Music Entertainment, an antitrust class action against the RIAA, the complaint — dismissed at the District Court level — has been reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In its 25-page opinion (PDF) , the Appeals court held the the following allegations to 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 [most favored nation clauses (MFNs)] 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.'"
Link to Original Source

cancel ×

2 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting (1)

calidoscope (312571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760764)

While there is no guarantee that the RIAA will lose the case, it's nice to see agree that at least some judges think the case has merit.

Now if we can go after some other entities for anti-trust, e.g. NFL, MLB, etc.

Re:Interesting (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768824)

Well I would say this is the biggest hurdle, because (a) all 7 of those allegations are demonstrably true, and (b) the RIAA is going to be real, real uncomfortable having its people tell under oath about the secret meetings, phone calls, memos, etc., which represent their day to day pattern of collusion. I'm predicting...... settlement.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?