Napster Legal Battle Reaches from Beyond the Grave 131
neelm writes "The EFF is reporting that EMI and Universal Music Group may have been caught lying to the Department of Justice in the 2001 antitrust investigation involving MusicNet, and pressplay. The 2001 investigation found no evidence of illegal efforts to monopolize digital music distribution, but new evidence presented by Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman ("original napster" investors) in their on-going defense from the RIAA suggests otherwise. The judge ruled that the documents to be turned over were not protected by attorney-client privilege because '[the court] finds reasonable cause to believe that the attorney's services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme.'"
Re:Forfeit copyright? (Score:3, Informative)
The EFF post is engaging in a bit of worst-case-scenario hyperbole. If Judge Patel is having a "Maximum Marilyn" kind of day, the RIAA cartel could forfeit the copyrights themselves. More likely, they'll just forfeit the claims made against Hummer Winblad and Bertelsman, since those claims were part of the plan to extend the cartel's control to online services, at the expense of the free market.
Re:Excellent-Coming out of the closet. (Score:3, Informative)
last i checked... where is it considered illegal in the US? Just recently in Texas anti-sodomy laws were struck down.
Besides, if that were true, half of my porn collection - completely devoid of man-on-man action - would be illegal. Heck, even some of the girl-on-girl action would be illegal ;)