RIAA ordered to reveal financial stats
p2pnet news view | RIAA:- From the look of it, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s RIAA will soon have to reveal data it doesn’t want revealed.
Its financial details.
Judge Nancy Gertner, presiding in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenenbaum, has defeated the RIAA’s efforts to keep its financial details completely secret, says Recording Industry vs The People, quoting her order, to wit »»»
Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part [870] Motion for Protective Order: The Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order [870] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Proposed Protective Order (document # 870-2) sweeps far more broadly than the two categories of materials described in the Plaintiffs’ motion: (1) the revenue figures ordered disclosed in the Court’s June 30, 2009 Electronic Order; and (2) a small subset of contracts relating to the copyrights’ chain of title. Indeed, the proposed order would permit either party to designate any materials disclosed in discovery in this case “Confidential” — even retroactively. With respect to the revenue figures, 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. The Court declines to bring these materials within a protective order. It will, however, order the second set of documents, which implicate the business interests of third-party artist-owned companies, shielded from disclosure. These documents shall be marked “Confidential” by the Plaintiffs, shall be used solely for the purpose of preparation and trial of this litigation, and shall be disclosed only to the parties, counsel and their employees, actual or potential experts and consultants, and witnesses. They shall not be publicly disclosed, in whole or in part, by any means. (Gertner, Nancy)
Definitely stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Recording Industry vs The People – Judge rejects RIAA attempt to keep revenue information secret in SONY v. Tenenbaum, July 14, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think this shows that the industry knows the kind of sh*t storm they will find themselves in should any of their deep dark secrets ever come to light, not just from the general public but also from those they have contracts with. That is of course if I understood all of that legaleeze correctly.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Actually my read is that the revenue numbers from the “big 4″ WILL be visible (and not covered by the protective order) – it’s only the data from “third-party artist-owned companies” that classified as confidential and is subject to the Order. Anyway, that’s my “been out of law school for too long to remember” reading of the language of the order.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
@ Fausty:
You’re correct. I posted this too quickly without reading it properly.
Dumb mistake.
Fixed, and thanks for pointing that out.
Cheers
July 16th, 2009 at 5:04 am
So – is the plan to show that Tenembaum’s downloading had zero impact on the Big 4’s revenue?