Feds claim Universal label offices used for drug dealing

There's an idea that Guy Hands didn't think of during his time at EMI: using the label offices to ship drugs.

According to DOJ documents published by The Smoking Gun, Interscope, part of the Universal collection of labels, was sucked into the heart of a multimillion drugs shipping outfit when its offices were used as a hub:

Department of Justice prosecutors this week provided defense lawyers with shipping records detailing “pickups and deliveries” made at Interscope’s Los Angeles office by a cargo firm that was used to transport the music cases, which were alternately stuffed with kilos of cocaine and upwards of $1 million in cash.

A year-long Drug Enforcement Administration investigation has resulted in the indictment of James Rosemond on 18 felony charges, which could result in a sentence of life in prison for the 46-year-old rap music manager.

There's no suggestion that the label itself was anything other than an innocent patsy in the operation.

RIAA not prepared to waiver in Thomas damages

To be fair, the RIAA companies could hardly turn round now and say that, actually, nearly two million dollars in damages for sharing unlicensed music is a frankly absurd level of damages, and so it's unsurprising they're having to stick to their morally dubious beliefs and rejected Jammie Thomas-Rasset's appeal to have the jury award reduced to a less absurd figure:

[T]he labels say that the award, which represents $80,000 for each of the 24 works on which the labels sought damages (among about 1,700 in Thomas-Rasset's KaZaA shared folder), survives the more deferential standard set forth in St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919), under which an award must be upheld unless it is "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable."

Although eighty grand for each instance of filesharing would seem to not just tick the "severe, oppressive and disproportioned" boxes, but also award house points and write 'good job' in big red letters next to them.

There is a grudging sign that not everyone in the RIAA companies is just plain evil, though, as they do offer to consider a remittur:

However, the labels say they will only do so if the reduced award adequately reflects the "infringement of a significant number of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings ... as well as the substantial damage caused to Plaintiffs and their businesses by Defendant’s actions." And they will not accept a remittitur based on a reduction in the award on constitutional grounds.

Except, of course, the labels haven't been able to demonstrate serious damage to their businesses - either by filesharing generally, or Thomas' specific file-sharing - except to point to circumstantial evidence.

So, the RIAA line is effectively "we'll only come to terms if we still get a massive wedge, and nobody suggests the law allowing us to demand stupid money is broken beyond belief."

Their confidence is in part buoyed by the disappointing number of copyright fundamentalists who have been welcomed into Obama's White House. Earlier this week, the Department of Justice indicated it was comfortable with the two million dollar fine. Change?

Obama: Change is one thing, but copyright is another

The appointment of RIAA attorneys to top jobs in the Obama administration suggested that in the New America, it would be more of the same as far as copyright went.

And now, we've had that confirmed, in writing: Michelle Bennett, Department of Justice trial attorney, has defended the indefensible demands for copyright restitution made by the RIAA cartel:

The government said the damages range of $750 to $150,000 per violation of the Copyright Act was warranted.

"The remedy of statutory damages for copyright infringement has been the cornerstone of our federal copyright law since 1790, and Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation of the statutory damages provision."

She has a point - back in 1793, George Highsmith, Esquire, was fined USD75,000 for copying an etching. It was, observed the judge, as if he had just gone into an etching store "and made his egress without regard to recompensing the proprietor for his wares."

Bennett does, at least, attempt to explain why charging made-up sums of money is cool with the White House:

"Congress sought to account for both the difficulty of quantifying damages in the context of copyright infringement and the need to deter millions of users of new technology from infringing copyrighted work in an environment where many violators believe that their activities will go unnoticed," Bennett wrote.

So, let's not bother sullying the debate by considering if the amount charged is fair to the individual - since lots of people get away with "it", anyone who does get caught should be fined a sum to reflect other people's crimes, too. That seems fine.

And, really, you can't expect a fair fine, as it's so difficult to work out exactly how much financial damage has been done to the RIAA companies - so what could be more just than simply making up a number? "You have stolen some money, and since we can't be arsed to work out how much money you stole, we'll say its sixteen thousand pounds, shall we? Pay it back."

Siding with multinational corporations in pursuing unjust financial demands against low-income individuals. Isn't that the change you voted for, America?

[Thanks to Sarah W for the link]

Department of Justice wants a closer look at Ticketmaster-LiveNation

If Ticketmaster and LiveNation were hoping to be given an easy ride into a merger, they're going to be disappointed. The tie-up is being given a closer eye, with the Department of Justice calling for more details.

Meanwhile, Ticketmaster is suffering from, oh, too much success:

Ticketmaster chairman Barry Diller repeated his denial of that practice late Thursday. He also said the complaints that fans were shut out of Phish and Michael Jackson concerts were due to the tickets selling out in seconds.

"Oddly, the better we sell tickets, the more unpopular we become," Diller said.

Equally oddly, the more clumsy and clunky your systems are, the more people who get booted out, or dumped back at the log-in screen, or can't even get on in the first place, the more unpopular you become. Oddly, the more obscure mark-ups to ticket prices you come up with, the more unpopular you become. The more you try to form a large, monopoly-tang behemoth, the more unpopular you become. It's like you can't get an even break, innit?

Department of Justice tell Congress to say no

The proposed Enforcement of Intellectual Property Right Act of 2008 has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been criticised by many who oppose the extension of copyright matters into criminal cases. People like the EFF, copyleft campaigners. Oh, yes, and the Department of Justice:

We strongly oppose Title I of the bill, which not only authorizes the Attorney General to pursue civil remedies for copyright infringement, but to secure "restitution" damages and remit them to the private owners of infringed copyrights. First, civil copyright enforcement has always been the responsibility and prerogative of private copyright holders, and U.S. law already provides them with effective legal tools to protect their rights....

Second, Title 1's departure from the settled framework above could result in Department of Justice prosecutors serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders regardless of their resources. In effect, taxpayer-supported Department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.

The DOJ, it seems, are as puzzled as the rest of us why they should be spending public resources chasing after what has been long considered a civil matter.

The DOJ also points out that it could harm their ability to perform core duties:

Third, the Department of Justice has limited resources to dedicate to particular issues, and civil enforcement actions would occur at the expense of criminal actions, which only the Department of Justice may bring.

This might be the first time a law enforcement agency, rather than the newspapers or accused, have cried "hey, shouldn't we be out catching real criminals?"

Total Music to fall foul of Department of Justice

The half-arsed plans for TotalMusic - the major label's bid to try and gain control of the supply of online music - has already run into trouble before it's even got going.

The US Department of Justice has reportedly contacted all four big labels (including EMI and Warners who haven't even formally joined yet) to warn them it'll be looking closely at restrictive practices connected to the plans - the idea of 80% of the US music industry doing cosy deals amongst itself to control the supply of music looks, to DOJ eyes, like a recipe for price fixing - something for which the majors have form, having been found in the past to collude on the costs of CDs.