Thursday, January 04, 2007

Supposedly Fighting to Keep 70-cents-per-download price "confidential", RIAA files court papers admitting 70-cents is "in the correct range"

Ironically, as the RIAA battles on in its supposed struggle to keep its 70-cents-per-download wholesale price "confidential", in UMG v. Lindor, it has publicly filed court papers, in a discovery dispute before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy, admitting that the 70-cents-per-download price is "in the correct range" (See Richard Gabriel Letter, Exhibit A, 7th page) and that "the actual numbers are in the range that you have suggested [approximately 70 cents per download]" (Richard Gabriel Letter, Exhibit A, 6th page):

January 3, 2007, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel (Disclosure of Wholesale Download Prices)*
Exhibit A to Letter of Richard L. Gabriel*
January 3, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman responding to Gabriel letter (Disclosure of Wholesale Download Prices)*
Exhibit A to Letter of Ray Beckerman*
Exhibit B to Letter of Ray Beckerman*
Exhibit C to Letter of Ray Beckerman*
January 4, 2007, Letter of Richard Gabriel*
January 4, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

(English language:)

Ars Technica
Hard OCP
Tech Spot
Daily Kos

(Other languages:)

Heise Online

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


CodeWarrior said...

Actually, for an RIAA tune, I would humbly suggest that TWO CENTS would be highway robbery.

rufus said...

In a past article from, the Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick filed a lawsuit against Sony for underpayment of royalties. The story states that Sony receives 70 cents per download. The article can be read at:
UMG states the 70 cent download is in correct range according to papers filed in UMG vs Lindor. It may be interesting to find out if all of the record companies charge this same rate. It could suggest that the various companies got together to set a certain price and therefore there is no need to keep it confidential from competing parties. In my opinion, the matter should be investigated for price fixing, or even price gouging,since the cost of digital music is less costly than pressing CD's and packaging.

raybeckerman said...

Dear rufus

I have read reports that the New York State Attorney General's office is indeed investigating their price-fixing.

rufus said...

I know this is old news, but back in 2002 the record companies were found guilty of collusion in respect to CD sales. A good article is here:
It is interesting to note that the RIAA anti-file sharing campaign started four days before the lawsuit settlement was reached. I will let the readers draw their own conclusions about that. But my real reason for expressing my opinion today is to refute the statement from the RIAA attorney on page two of document 129 which states, "the record companies cannot share their pricing numbers with each other, because to do so would implicate very real antitrust concerns." I do not know if the major labels all charge at, or near, 70 cents per song,but if it is found out they do, is it pure coincidence? With the minimal cost of downloadable music, it seems to me, there would be a wide variety of pricing difference between the record companies. Especially with respect to supply and demand, meaning new and popular music would be more expensive than older, less popular music. With the recent past history of collusion between the record companies and, with further investigation, a possible " coincidence" that all downloadable music is sold at similar pricing, one can only come to the conclusion that the record companies are not really competing with each other like most of us know in the business world.

Alter_Fritz said...

"In my view the best possible outcome would be guilty but[...]"

Not if you did not have downloaded any songs or don't even own a Computer like Ms. Lindor in this case!

"But what is to stop the RIAA from some sort of dismissal motion if it looks like its going to set a bad precedent for them?"

Absolutely nothing. And infact this is exactly what RIAA do routinely in cases where the noncopyrightinfringers stand up against the evil RIAA.

raybeckerman said...

There were some posts from "anonymous" which have been deleted. There are not supposed to be anonymous comments on "Recording Industry vs. The People".