News 

The Recording Industry Association of America has refused to comply with a judge's order that they pass the information to an attorney defending Marie Lindor, who it is suing for allegedly sharing copyright music files.

According to Lindor's attorney, Ray Beckerman, the RIAA will only supply the data if he commits to keeping it confidential.

'Plaintiffs would like the well known fact that the prevailing price is 70 cents per download to be confidential,' Beckerman said.

Beckerman wants the information in order to demonstrate that the $750 per-song that the RIAA is claiming in 'damages' is too much, 1,071 times too much, he claims

The RIAA and its member labels regard the wholesale price as a trade secret. But its reluctance to divulge the exact figure has been attributed

ADVERTISEMENT

to an unwillingness to reveal that some of the larger online music services are paying less than smaller operators

Having enjoyed a fairly easy ride in its early lawsuits against alleged files sharers, the RIAA has faced stiffer opposition of late, as the efforts of those who oppose it have become more co-ordinated and better informed. As a result the number of new lawsuits has dropped, despite the fact that the RIAA has yet to lose a case (even if it has lost a huge amount of public goodwill).

P2pnet predicts that the music industry will have an even tougher time in 2007, starting with the case against Tenise Barker, which is due to be heard from 26 January.

In the past, the website claims, cases have largely been heard by 'elderly and technically inept judges hearing RIAA cases seem almost to have relied on RIAA "experts" and lawyers to tell them what to do.'

That will not be the case for Barker.

'This time around things will be different,' the pro-sharing website says. 'The arguments will be heard by judge Kenneth M Karas, 42, someone who's familiar with the kind of technology he'll be hearing about, and someone who's likely to ask his own informed questions, at length and in depth. And the grilling could be bad for the RIAA whose "expert testimony" is already being held up to close and unwelcome scrutiny in other cases.'