• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Hot News

Latest News

View All

The Napster Shutdown Order

by Maarten Goldstein, Aug 13, 2000 7:26am PDT
Related Topics – RIAA

As a follow up to the recent Napster events that almost led to the shut down of Napster while waiting for the trial (story 1, story 2) on Yahoo. The judge who had granted the preliminary injunction has now released the details as of why she did that. Napster has to deliver papers this week that show why the judge was wrong in her decision.

"Indeed...(Napster) has contributed to a new attitude that digitally downloaded songs ought to be free--an attitude that creates formidable hurdles for the establishment of a commercial downloading market," [judge] Patel wrote.
If Napster doesn't come up with a good reason as of why they shouldn't be shut down, they still will be and Napster will be pretty much dead as the trials with the RIAA could take a very long time.


Read all the News


Comments

40 Threads | 169 Comments
  • #94
    Refresh Thread
    By: Adamm x
    Reply
    Don't worry, the labels are getting their fair share of legal action, too.

    28 States have filed a suit against numerous record labels, alleging that they conspired to raise the prices of CDs, costing consumers as much as $480 million (estimated by the FTC) since the early 90s.

    This is what the Associated Press had to say about it:

    "The lawsuit comes three months after the five major music distributors, while admitting no wrongdoing, settled Federal Trade Commission charges they unfairly inflated CD prices.

    Under that deal, the companies agreed to discontinue minimum advertised price programs that forced retailers to sell music CDs at or above a set level in return for getting substantial advertising funding.

    Keith Estabrook, a spokesman for BMG Music, said the company still believed that the pricing policy ``was a legitimate and appropriate practice and we are confident that the courts will reach the same conclusion.''

    Will Tanous, a Warner Music spokesman, concurred, saying the pricing policies served ``a valid business purpose and benefited consumers by substantially furthering retail competition.''

    ``It was an appropriate and lawful practice,'' he added.

    Doug Curry, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, declined to comment.

    The lawsuit by the states essentially does what the FTC promised not to do in its settlement deal: seek damages for past pricing tactics. But the attorneys general said they were seeking damages on behalf of the consumers they represent.

    They said the record companies in February 1995 conspired to force several large discount retailers to raise prices after the retailers bought CDs in such large volume that they could undercut the prevailing high retail prices.

    The deals initially drew vigorous protests from discount retailers but the chains eventually gave up because the financial penalty for not participating in the scheme was too costly, the lawsuit said.

    As a result, CD prices stabilized and then rose, the lawsuit said.

    Besides the record companies, the lawsuit named some large record stores as defendants, including Tower Records.

    ``Prices are not coming down,'' he [spokesman for Tower Records] told the Los Angeles Times. ``They're already at rock bottom. It's outrageous to mislead music fans to think otherwise.''

    According to the FTC, the five companies distribute 85 percent of the music CDs sold in the United States, an industry that reported a record $15 billion in sales last year. The average CD now costs $14 to $17, though discount stores had once sold some popular CDs for as little as $10."

    It makes me wonder why the spokesman for Tower doesn't look back at what his company and DOZENS of other companies said in the early 90s - that CD prices were high because it was a new technology and that they would eventually fall.

    I'm still waiting for the fall, and the RIAA isn't helping me in the slightest. And I don't like being ripped off just as much as they and their artists don't like being ripped off. The only problem is that we've been ripped off, in the long run, more (money-wise) than Napster has ripped off the labels and the artists.

    Pathetic.

    I'll also be writing Colorado's attourney general to ask why we're not included in this lawsuit. Our prices are easily $20 or $21 after taxes. (Fortunately, SecondSpin.com has a physical store near my house, so I can buy used CDs in near-mint condition for around $5, after taxes).

    Oh, and the states involved are: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico have also joined the fray.

    Adam Steinbaugh
    http://www.modernempire.com
    Aug 13, 2000 8:48am PDT