UMG Says Throwing Away Promo CDs is Illegal

[Liviu_5]

And some people wonder why RIAA and the big recording houses are hated...

Link:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04...mo-cds-illegal

[NatCh]

This is a good example of why we should not protect our children too much: if they never hurt themselves then they never learn not to do dumb things, then they become Music Industry Executives. Chaos ensues.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

And some people wonder why RIAA and the big recording houses are hated... Link: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04...mo-cds-illegal

This is one case that makes me wish I was still practicing law. My argument would be on behalf of municipalities: I would sue UMG for damages for filling the landfill with nonbiodegradable waste because if they own it forever, they still own it. And I would ask the court to grant injunctive relief to require UMG to remove all of their CDs from the municipal landfill. It could be fun to watch them squirm.

[NatCh]

And just when I think that there's no good use for lawyers!

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by rhadin

This is one case that makes me wish I was still practicing law. My argument would be on behalf of municipalities: I would sue UMG for damages for filling the landfill with nonbiodegradable waste because if they own it forever, they still own it. And I would ask the court to grant injunctive relief to require UMG to remove all of their CDs from the municipal landfill. It could be fun to watch them squirm.

priceless...always fun when you can use someone else's idea of "fair rules" against them.

[tribble]

Well, if UMG wins, someone should file a lawsuit following rhadins path. This could be really fun. I would even donate a couple of dollars to help the cause

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by tribble

Well, if UMG wins, someone should file a lawsuit following rhadins path. This could be really fun. I would even donate a couple of dollars to help the cause

Actually, someone should file the suit now and use the public pleadings as an admission against interest. Doing so would serve a couple of purposes, not least of which might be to get the industry to back off.

I read an interesting story in our local paper this past week about the industry trying to dismiss a lawsuit it had filed against someone who, the industry discovered, was the wrong person -- the alleged violator was the defendant's adult daughter. At least in this case the defendant has a smart attorney who filed counterclaims, so even if the the primary suit is dismissed, the counterclaims remain. Ultimately it will depend on how ambitious the lawyer is whether the industry gets its comeuppance.

[JSWolf]

I hope they get it big time. They cannot just accuse people without due process and proper evidence. Let the industry pay for their strong arm tactics. They are violating our rights and they think it's OK. Well, it's not OK and never will be. They need to do this by the law which means evidence and due process.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I hope they get it big time. They cannot just accuse people without due process and proper evidence. Let the industry pay for their strong arm tactics.

I feel the same but, alas, it is clear that in our current conservative court system, those who have big bucks can do whatever they want and those who haven't got big bucks have to pay to be abused.

Last week one court held that even though the RIAA had sued the wrong person and had caused that person to rack up $30,000+ in legal fees, (a) the suit could be dismissed without prejudice (meaning the RIAA could sue this person again), (b) the victim's counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice (can't sue the RIAA on the same claim), and (c) the RIAA was not responsible for the victim's legal fees.

Another court dismissed -- again without prejudice -- an RIAA suit against a homeless man and again didn't award the victim attorney's fees even though the court found that the RIAA had lied.

I'm not familiar with the bases for the counterclaims in the lawsuits filed, but the dismissals indicate to me (a) big bucks matter, not right or wrong, in today's judicial system and (b) perhaps the defense attorneys are not creative enough.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by rhadin

This is one case that makes me wish I was still practicing law. My argument would be on behalf of municipalities: I would sue UMG for damages for filling the landfill with nonbiodegradable waste because if they own it forever, they still own it. And I would ask the court to grant injunctive relief to require UMG to remove all of their CDs from the municipal landfill. It could be fun to watch them squirm.

rhadin, why stop with the municipalities. This could easily be expanded to a class action suit for anyone who received the CDs, unwanted. UGM would be guilty of trowing their trash on your property, with appropriate actual and punitive damages against UGM. Then further expanded to all junk mail senders. Then further expanded to everyone who now must pay higher prices for stamps due to junk mail. Then further expanded to all postal workers with back problems due to handling all that junk mail.

You could be on a roll. Go for it.

[NatCh]

You get the torches, I'll sharpen the pitchforks, then we'll go get them!

[mazzeltjes]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

And some people wonder why RIAA and the big recording houses are hated...

Link:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04...mo-cds-illegal