Justice Department Increasingly Looking Like The RIAA/MPAA's Legal Team

from the change-the-riaa-can-believe-in dept

It seems that the Obama administration is basically hiring the entire RIAA/MPAA/BSA legal team these days. It started off with the RIAA's favorite lawyer, then it hired the BSA's antipiracy enforcer, and now it's brought on two more of the entertainment industry's favorite lawyers, including Don Verrilli, who was one of the main guys arguing the entertainment industry's side in the infamous (and terribly decided) Grokster case. He also was the guy who argued the RIAA's case that the Jammie Thomas verdict shouldn't be thrown out (on that one, he lost, thankfully). Of course, if you're thinking things would have been any better had McCain won, just note that one of his legal advisors is gleefully cheering on these appointments. Still, as Ray Beckerman notes, Obama's own rules should preclude these guys working on issues related to those they used to represent. We'll see if that actually happens, though.

Filed Under: don verrilli, justice department, obama
Companies: mpaa, riaa

RIAA's New Litigation Boss Is Former Exec Caught 'Misstating Facts' In Court

from the ethics-anyone? dept

The RIAA has announced that Jennifer Pariser is its new Senior VP of Litigation -- which is at first interesting given that the RIAA claimed it was giving up on litigation. Of course, the truth is that the RIAA is not actually giving up on litigation, it just is cutting back because (a) the lawsuits have been woefully ineffective and (b) they're not even an effective means of bringing in revenue anymore. So, the RIAA decided that it would cut back, and in doing so turn it into a media frenzy by falsely claiming it was stopping the lawsuits.

But, for some of you, Pariser's name may be familiar. That's because when she was at her last job, as an executive at Sony BMG, she testified in the infamous Jammie Thomas trial -- where she was caught outright lying on the stand, which the RIAA later admitted (well, it claimed she "misspoke"). While the Thomas trial was eventually declared a mistrial due to a mistake made by the judge, I've never understood why Thomas's team didn't respond to the fact that the RIAA has admitted that its own "expert" witness lied on the stand in claiming that making a single copy of a song from a CD for personal use is "stealing." And, now, the RIAA rewards her by putting her in charge of its litigation strategy?

Filed Under: jennifer pariser
Companies: riaa

Another Reason For Record Labels' Interest In A Music Tax: To Screw Apple

from the don't-think-it's-not-in-their-minds... dept

Despite early resistance, in the past few years, the record labels have warmed to the idea of a "music tax" put on ISPs. There are numerous reasons why this is a terrible idea, but you can bet there's one big reason why the record labels love it that they won't talk about: it would (they think, incorrectly) harm Apple. The recording industry has been amazingly jealous of Apple's success over the past few years -- even though its own demands for DRM caused much of the problem. It locked Apple in as the dominant provider and gave it tremendous market leverage -- such that no big record label risks rocking the boat and getting thrown out of iTunes.

And, despite the recent agreement to dump DRM and allow some form of variable pricing, the NY Times notes that the big record labels still have a strong hatred for Apple. While the article doesn't discuss it at all, you can bet that a big part of the desire to come up with a music tax/collective license/whatever they want to call it these days to make it sound palatable is that it will harm the iTunes lock on the market. That might be true, but the record labels may find it's more difficult to get rid of Apple than they believe. Apple's real profits are in the iPod, not the music -- so if they can suddenly offer music for "free" via iTunes as well, that would likely help sell more iPods, which would actually increase the use of iTunes as the dominant interface for interacting with the iPod.

Filed Under: itunes, music tax, record labels
Companies: apple, riaa

EFF Explains Why You Should Be Allowed To Sell Promo CDs

from the first-sale-first-sale-first-sale dept

Last summer, a district court ruled that selling promo CDs is perfectly legal. This was an important ruling, because it reinforced the right of first sale -- which has been a part of copyright law for ages -- and it made it clear that companies couldn't wipe out the limits of copyright law simply by declaring them void. The case involved a guy, Troy Augusto, who was selling CDs on eBay. Many of the CDs were "promo" CDs that had been sent to reviewers and radio stations -- stamped with the words to the effect of "Promo: Not for Resale." I've got a few such CDs in my own collection.

Universal Music Group claimed that these CDs remained its property because of that stamp. However, that goes against the entire first sale doctrine concept -- which has always allowed individuals to resell copyrighted products that they possess. Universal's claim was that the stamp meant that it continued to own the CD, even though it never asked for such CDs back. If allowed, this would effectively let any company create their own copyright laws by simply stamping the content with the rules. So, forget the current, already ridiculous, term for copyright. New authors or musicians could just stamp every product with "Property of the content creator" and you would never actually own the product.

Luckily the court disagreed... but Universal has appealed, and the RIAA has filed a brief siding with UMG as well. The EFF has now filed its own brief, noting the ridiculous consequences of any ruling where Universal wins. Allowing Universal to win would effectively mean that all of the extremely important (and already diminished) limits found on copyright today no longer apply. That would be a travesty and go against everything that copyright was originally designed to represent.

Filed Under: promotional cds
Companies: eff, riaa, universal music

AT&T And Comcast Willing To Cut Off File Sharers

from the no-surprise-there dept

While ISPs have been reluctant to admit to agreeing to be a part of the RIAA's three strikes plan, if you had to take a guess who would be involved, AT&T and Comcast would probably lead the list (along with Cox, which has already admitted to doing so). So, it probably comes as no surprise that News.com has confirmed from internal sources that, indeed, both AT&T and Comcast have agreed, in principle, to participate -- though neither will admit to it publicly for fear of public backlash. Of course, in places like where I live, what do they have to fear? The only options for broadband here are... AT&T DSL and Comcast cable. So it's not like there are alternatives. It shouldn't impact me directly, since I don't engage in any file sharing, but the principle of the thing is quite bothersome (not to mention the false positives that occur). No matter what other issues one might have with Verizon, the company should be given credit for (a) actually investing in much faster fiber networks and (b) being willing to openly stand up to the entertainment industry over the years. If only FiOS were actually available where I live.

Filed Under: isps, three strikes
Companies: at&t, comcast, riaa

RIAA Found To Have Sued Yet Another Woman Without A Computer

from the sterling-investigative-techniques dept

While the RIAA insists that it's stopped its lawsuit campaign, it's still moving forward with existing lawsuits -- including one against yet another woman who claims not to have even owned a computer on the date she was accused of file sharing. Now it's possible that the woman is lying -- but if that's the case, she's going to be in a lot more trouble than for sharing some music files. This is not the first time the RIAA was found to have sued people without a computer either -- which again just serves to raise significant questions about the RIAA's "investigative" techniques.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuit
Companies: riaa

RIAA Asks For Sanctions Against Charles Nesson In Tenenbaum Suit

from the getting-nasty dept

I think it would be an understatement to say that the RIAA is rather unhappy with Charles Nesson and his team of folks from Harvard Law, challenging them on the constitutionality of the RIAA's "sue everyone" strategy. Recently, they've been battling over the right to broadcast the courtroom proceedings, and now the RIAA is asking for monetary sanctions against Nesson, claiming he violated certain procedural rules. The RIAA is likely seeking sanctions under section 11, which is used against lawyers who file lawsuits that are "unreasonable." In other words, this is starting to get personal.

Filed Under: charles neeson, constitutionality, joel tenenbaum, lawsuits, sanctions
Companies: riaa

RIAA Explanation For Not Wanting Court Broadcast: Those Geeks Might Remix It

from the context-is-king dept

We've already discussed how badly the RIAA does not want the pretrial hearings in the Tenenbaum case to be broadcast -- as was requested by Tenenbaum's lawyers, and approved by the judge in the case. However, the reasoning from the RIAA is pretty laughable. Apparently, it's afraid that (gasp!) some of these tech savvy propaganda-ists out there might remix the video and "manipulate" it to take RIAA arguments out of context. Of course, in saying so, the RIAA has now pretty much guaranteed that's what will happen, but... that still shouldn't matter. We know the RIAA is against the whole concept of remixing, but we thought that was a copyright issue, not one where they actually think that such remixes are universally taken as fact. I wonder if the folks at the RIAA think that things like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are serious news programs rather than satire...

Filed Under: broadcast, tenenbaum
Companies: riaa

IP Litigation Falls In The US... But Someone Is Confused As To Why

from the the-*successful*-RIAA-strategy? dept

There's a new report out that highlights that there were fewer IP related lawsuits in the US in 2008 than in 2007. The drop was about 10%: from 10,276 to 9,210. However, the reasoning given in the report for the decline is difficult to square with reality. It claims that: "The trend reflects the success of the recording industry in protecting its copyrights, leading the industry to bring fewer lawsuits in the past few years." That isn't even close to accurate. The RIAA has had very little success protecting its copyrights. The legal strategy has been a colossal failure, without a single legal win that held up, and file sharing has only grown over time. Hell, the RIAA has admitted failure in their lawsuit strategy, hence the decision to cut back on them (not end them, completely, as was originally claimed). So, it's difficult to see how anyone could conclude that the program was a success, and resulted in fewer lawsuits. And, of course, the aggregate numbers may not be all that telling, either. In the past, patent system defenders have noted a drop in cases filed recently, but they fail to note that it was because more patent litigation these days is filed against a long list of companies, rather than just one or two. So, in actuality, more companies are getting sued for patent infringement, even if there are fewer overall lawsuits.

Filed Under: intellectual property, lawsuits
Companies: riaa

Judge Approves Public Broadcast Of RIAA Lawsuit

from the educate-us,-please dept

Harvard Law prof. Charlie Nesson has been leading a case challenging the constitutionality of a core part of the RIAA's continuing lawsuit strategy. Late last year, he asked a judge if the trial itself could be broadcast live over the internet, noting that the RIAA claimed the lawsuits were part of its education campaign, so he couldn't see why they would object. Of course, they did object, but the judge has sided with Nesson, and the court proceedings will be broadcast live next Thursday, January 22nd on the Berkman Center's website. The judge repeated Nesson's points in responding to the RIAA's objection, noting that the RIAA's objection seemed "curious" considering its previous claims of this being an educational campaign. Nesson and his law students had clearly done their homework on the judge. As the article notes, in 2007, the judge (Nancy Gertner) had testified on Capitol Hill on the importance of broadcasting more trials over the internet and television.

Filed Under: charles neeson, constitutionality, fines, joel tenenbaum, lawsuits, penalties
Companies: riaa