Copyright Law

What does RIAA's new "amended corporate disclosure statement" mean?

By Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman

In Capitol v. Weed, the plaintiffs have filed an amended Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement.

A very bizarre item is the claim that Capitol Records, Inc., has changed its name to Capitol Records, LLC., which, as the lawyers among you know, is impossible. Obviously some other transaction(s) have taken place, and the RIAA lawyers -- having attended law school -- knew that it is impossible, which means that they once again knew that they were signing a false document when they signed the amended corporate disclosure statement.

It would be interesting to know what kind of transaction actually took place at Capitol Records that the RIAA is trying to conceal from the defendants' lawyers. Certainly, if Capitol Records, Inc. has assigned its copyrights to a new entity named Capitol Records, LLC, we are entitled to know about it, and the plaintiffs would have to make a motion to amend the caption of the case, and provide discovery about the assignments of copyrights.

There are other changes involving (a) the parent company for Capitol, (b) Virgin, (c) SONY BMG, and (d) Arista.

Any thoughts?

-R.B.

Original Rule 7.1 Statement*
Amended Rule 7.1 Statement*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property

Full post as published by Recording Industry vs The People on May 13, 2008 (boomark / email).