Did Music Labels Lie To The Justice Department On Digital Downloads?
from the new-evidence dept
This story involves quite a bit of ancient (in internet terms) history, so we'll give a quick refresher for those who weren't around or don't remember. When the original Napster was being attacked by the recording industry, at least a few people within the industry recognized that they had to at least try to offer their own online music stores. The problem, though, was (of course) that they were scared to death of cannibalizing their own business, and so the two music label owned services, MusicNet and PressPlay, were dubbed MusicNot and PressPause for being about as useless as they could be -- which (not surprisingly) meant they got no business. Still, as they were being set up, the efforts caught the attention of the Justice Department, who wondered if the labels were colluding over prices. Eventually, with both services failing miserably, and others starting to get into the space, the DOJ dropped the investigation, claiming they hadn't turned up any evidence.Meanwhile, following the fall of Napster, two of the record labels, Universal and EMI, both sued a third label, Bertelsmann. When Napster was originally taking off, Bertelsmann has a forward-thinking CEO who actually recognized that sharing could represent the future of music -- so he had the company invest in Napster (a move he was eventually fired for). This investment upset the other labels, as they wanted to have a united front against Napster -- and having one of their core members break ranks was a huge problem. To show their displeasure, Universal Music and EMI took the amazing step of suing Bertelsmann. The claims were really problematic, in suggesting that investors might be liable for the actions of a company. Taken to the logical extreme, it would mean that you could be responsible for the legal misdeeds of any company whose stock you owned. For obvious reasons, this seemed problematic -- but the case has continued.
Bringing these two stories together, is the fact that in that second (still ongoing) case, new evidence has been filed that suggests both EMI and Universal may have lied to the DOJ when both were being investigated concerning MusicNet and PressPlay. The evidence suggests that the two services were guaranteed to get the best prices for music and used consultants to share information that shouldn't have been shared (normally called collusion). These facts were apparently hidden from investigators. It's not clear what impact this would have either way -- but the judge in the case has ordered both labels to turn over documents concerning this hidden info, including stuff that would normally be protected by attorney-client privilege, under the belief that the labels used their attorneys for illegal purposes to hide info. Yes, everyone must be shocked to hear yet another story of record labels breaking the law -- just as our elected officials rush to give those labels more protection for their failing business models.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Obviously...
Who knows. Maybe Madonna will testify for them as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
investors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? Music Labels Lie?
All joking aside, It seems to me it's time to get the RIAA and Music Labels to change their tune. They want to cry about how people breaking the law are costing them so much money, and in the end, they're breaking the law themselves! I think it's time to show them that breaking the law does cost money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok everyone, lets all go downloade some songs just to further piss them off. woot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Downloading
okay, just downloaded 4 different alblums and 7 discographies - total reatil value: aprrox US$784.35
Take that RIAA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rediculous.
I think a legitimate company needs to model thier online sales like allofmp3.com and target so most songs will be around $0.50, where they SHOULD be due to the SUBSTANTIALLY less overhead compared to retail CD sales.
The RIAA has and alway WILL have thier heads up thier 4th point of contact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how much do they spend on???
Maybe they should drop the lawyers and the budget for them, and use it to come up with services worth using!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how much do they spend on???
Our lawyers are an important part of our new business model. We only put out so many products worth purchasing (if any) so the only way for us to make money anymore is by suing fans of the artists who download music files. Without our lawyers and mob-tactics we couldn't get away with calling it piracy because its obviously fair use. The days of "make money with quality products and services" are long gone. Lawyers and lawsuits are where its at!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So how much do they spend on???
And boy is it ever lucrative. You see, gulity or not, people facing our lawsuits will always fork over 5K to settle rather than risk fighting us in court. The DMCA unlocked this magic formula, terrorism is helping us strengthen it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So how much do they spend on???
And boy is it ever lucrative. You see, gulity or not, people facing our lawsuits will always fork over 5K to settle rather than risk fighting us in court. The DMCA unlocked this magic formula, terrorism is helping us strengthen it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So how much do they spend on???
And boy is it ever lucrative. You see, gulity or not, people facing our lawsuits will always fork over 5K to settle rather than risk fighting us in court. The DMCA unlocked this magic formula, terrorism is helping us strengthen it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]