RIAA Settles Suits Against Students

wo1verin3 writes "Cnet's News.Com has reported that the RIAA has settled the suits with four students accused of sharing songs. The settlements will see each student making payments to the RIAA totaling between $12,000 and $17,000, split into annual installments between 2003 and 2006."

Comments

I think I speak for us all when I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that's fucked up.

That'll Teach 'Em

[carb]

I wonder what the goal of this is ... I don't think these students will begin purchasing CDs now (as opposed to downloading) given their $17k debt ... fabulous.

I think the RIAA should sue all of us, and then we'll all turn to buying CDs! Brilliant!

Re:That'll Teach 'Em

[thelenm]

Maybe the point is that if they can get $17,000 out of anyone that's ever swapped music online, they'll never need to sell any more CDs. In fact, that may be the only strategy that makes any sense if they insist on continuing to piss off legitimate consumers until they stop buying CDs at all.

Re:That'll Teach 'Em

[phyxeld]

$17k is practically nothing to the music mafia. Their real win here is in the intimidation factor. There will be people who read this slashdot story, say Oh Shit, and think twice next time they want to get a track off a p2p network. They're trying to scare us, and from the looks of this discussion, it's working well.

I for one won't let this stop me though :)

Re:That'll Teach 'Em

[gad_zuki!]

>y Oh Shit, and think twice next time they want to get a track off a p2p network.

I wouldn't think it would deter downloaders as much as it would potential P2P software writers. Remember, these students wrote software that one reporter described as "mini-Napster."

If anything P2P will move more underground (compromised servers, encryption, passwords, etc) which will serve the RIAA pretty well as Joe User will probably not be able to keep up with the newest 'warez sites.' A barrier to entry was just erected today.

Re:That'll Teach 'Em

[finkployd]

Sure, it will have that effect. But I think the negative publicity that the music industry is getting from this (and all the other actions over the last 5 years or so) will hurt them more than p2p software. These kind of things are no longer just affecting computer geeks and being talked about only on slashdot.

Case in point, years ago most non-computer people I know were talking about napster and how bad it was that people were stealing music. Today, even Joe Blow knows that the record industry is acting like a bunch of spoiled assholes and activly going after a bunch of poor college students for outragous fines. This IS being reported in non-geek media and people ARE starting to get the picture. This will hurt the RIAA.

Unfortunatly that is probably what they want. They already have congress convinced that no matter how much of a profit they make they SHOULD have made much more and p2p is always to blame. Worse business for them means more laws in their favor.

Finkployd

and how much

[Anonymous Coward]

and how much does the artists get?

Re:and how much

[cK-Gunslinger]

That got a "+Funny" mod, but I think it is a legit question. If the RIAA keeps talking about how "we" are hurting the artists, what measures are they taking to give the artists restitution?

Scare Tactics

[oddjob]

I'm not surprised that this case didn't go to trial -- there was too much risk for both sides. Even if the students could afford to defend themselves, there is no way they could risk losing millions of dollars. On the RIAA side, they would be in trouble if the case went to trial whether they won or lost. If they lost, they would not be able to use the threat of lawsuits as effectively in the future. If they won, the bad publicity from getting such an obscene judgement might cause people to question current copyright laws. With this settlement, the RIAA maintains the status quo.

Re:Not just distributing songs

[aridhol]

Can Google be sued for direct links that liable for direct links?

Of course not. Google has money to defend themselves.

More seriously, the RIAA does not want this, or similar incidents, to get to court. Because then, the judge will make a ruling, which may just be against the RIAA. By attacking small targets, they are able to push for a settlement.

Re:You don't speak for me.

[Recoil_42]

I think the RIAA is getting off rather light. What they're doing is illegal and they know it. Why else would they resort to suing college students, spamming kazaa... its all desperate measures. they deserve whatever comes their way. i dunno about you, but i'll keep on trading till cds are 5 bucks each...

Re:You don't speak for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they got off rather light.

Oh really! People I know who were caught with illegal drugs in college weren't fined anywhere near this much. That is, the very few that were stupid and obvious enough to get caught.

Awful precedent

[PincheGab]

This is scary... If the RIAA is going to sue everyone using file swapping with an aim to settle this will happen:

1) There will be tons of lawsuits filed.

2) Million-dollar lawsuits are unpayable for the "common people," but $15,000 is well within reach. That means those sued will _have_ to pay it, and no judge will dismiss the settlement. It's feasible and doable to pay $15,000 over five years. Chump change to the RIAA, yes -- but most importantly: This will be a self-supporting business. Settlement money will fund new lawsuits. The RIAA is not after the money, they're out to threaten and terrorize anyone who uses file-swapping, and literally, the lawsuits will "pay for themselves."

This stinks... If you thought the Microsoft tax was bad, get ready for the RIAA tax!

Re:You don't speak for me.

[(54)T-Dub]

Or why not call it a Black Market? I mean, that's what it is. The RIAA price fixed CD's and now they have a black market. Econ 101.

Re:Let's set up a fund for them

[cybermace5]

All you'll do is make us, in the public eye, look like we believe in breaking the law.

Also, you'll create a cycle where the RIAA keeps filing cases and the settlement amounts keep getting higher, because they will be funded by warm-hearted individuals such as yourself.

Re:You don't speak for me.

[Jayjay75]

>>Nobody gets jail time for copyright violations.
>Under the DMCA you can get jail-time.

That's exactly why the DCMA should be repealed. It lets the RIAA, the MPAA, Adobe, etc. shift the cost of enforcing their copyrights onto the taxpayers.

Copyright violations are normally a civil offence, meaning if you violate my copyright I can sue you. But under DCMA, if the material is in digital format violating my copyright suddenly becomes a criminal offence. Why?

They shouldn't have settled...

[Pettifogger]

I think this was a mistake. In a way, it makes sense, because the amount they settled for is less than what it would have cost to defend them. I'm sure this is the biggest reason they took the deal.

What they should have done is not bothered hiring attorneys at all, appeared pro se, and then taken it to a jury trial and turned it into a circus. Believe me, that scenario would have the RIAA shaking in their boots. There would be massive publicity, the RIAA would have been completely trashed before it was over and no one would have cared who won in the end. This is their nightmare scenario, and if anyone else out there gets sued, don't take the easy road with settlement. Go in there and humiliate the RIAA.

Re:You don't speak for me.

[richieb]

Exactly. Why the constant use of the word 'sharing' when 'illegally distributing' would be more accurate?

Actually, one of these guys was running a search engine. Since when is that illegal!?

I'd love to see someone create a system that actually allowed true borrowing of other people's music/movies

You may have heard of this - it's called a library.

Re:Let's set up a fund for them

[Blue Stone]

"All you'll do is make us, in the public eye, look like we believe in breaking the law. "

Laws can be made against anything. It doesn't mean it's actually wrong to do that thing.
I use Kazaa. I buy CDs. I've bought CDs because I've used Kazaa.
I plan to buy the new Radio Head album when it comes out, purely because of the "leaked" tracks, from "Hail To The Thief."
I've never bought a RadioHead album before in my life, and I'd never have probably heard the songs that made me want to buy the CD, in the first place, either.
It's not a black and white issue.

Re:You don't speak for me.

[JJahn]

Or you can call the RIAA a cartel, which is exactly what they are.

Re:You don't speak for me.

[ichimunki]

What are you talking about? Copyright means the right to control distribution (i.e. "copy" + "right"), not the right to control reception. If you are distributing copyright works, that is the violation. Otherwise every time I buy any copyrighted work anywhere I'd have to go through a lengthy process of verifying that the seller had the right to sell that work in order to protect myself from liability.

If I'm listening to web radio, am I going to be liable because the "broadcaster" didn't pay his/her ASCAP/BMI fees? I sure as hell hope not. Ditto if I download any other file. Maybe if I am knowingly involved in receiving illegal copies I can be held liable for contributory infringement of some sort, but how am I to know that it's not the record company sharing those files on Kazaa? (just an example... I don't actually use Kazaa)

Re:$12000 buys how many songs?

[Theaetetus]

OK. This comes up every so often, but it must be clarified. Technically, a well cared for record is better quality than a CD. Why? Because sampling "simplifies" a recorded analog waveform. I don't have time to go into too much detail, but read this [earthlink.net] if you need to know more. Just because records are old tech doesn't mean they suck.

Unfortunately, that's a severe exaggeration perpetuated by the "analog audiophile" (note the quotes) community.

Yes, sampling simplifies an analog waveform. Theoretically, analog has infinite bandwidth, whereas a digital signal has a cap at a frequency depending on the sampling rate (Nyquist frequency = 1/2 of sampling rate - thus, on a 44.1 kHz-sampled CD, the highest frequency you can possibly record is 22.05 kHz. It gets a little worse than this by the need to use filters to be 40 dB down [Redbook standard] at the Nyquist frequency, so they really start rolling off around 20 kHz or so).

So, yes, you do have to 'simplify' a recorded analog waveform to put it on a CD.

However, ask yourself this - does vinyl have infinite bandwidth? You think so? Well, say you have harmonics up at 50 kHz (which some sounds do) - do you think the mass of the needle/arm combination is able to move that fast? Nope.
Also, are you able to press vinyl with enough resolution to put a 50 kHz tone into it? Nope. Maybe possibly if you're doing your "pressing" with a laser, but other than that, no. Plus, you need those waves to be pretty damn deep (high amplitude) in that vinyl for them to move the needle. Otherwise the needle point will just skip right over 'em. And speaking of which, you need a needle sharp enough and fine enough to ride those 50 kHz grooves... which doesn't currently exist.

Then, you need pre-amps and amplifiers to reproduce a 50 kHz tone (tough, but not impossible), and speakers that can reproduce a tone that high (nearly impossible, and really freakin' expensive)... not to mention ears that can hear it.

In short, CDs have bandwidth limitations. But so do vinyl records. And a theoretical best vinyl has a lower signal-to-noise ratio than a theoretical best CD - and when you start talking about the high-res formats, SACD or DVD-A, there's no contest.

Records don't suck, they were great for their time. But they've been surpassed.

-T

Re:You don't speak for me.

[Kierthos]

You're right. It will absolutely destroy capitalism. I mean, yesterday, there I was, driving around town in the Porsche I downloaded through Kazaa. Then I went home just in time to eat the steak dinner that had finished downloading.

Get real. The only part of "capitalism" this hurts is the music industry and the movie industry. (And I daresay it hurts the music industry a lot more, as it's still easier to go out and buy the DVD rather then wait 196 hours to download one.) And if the music industry insists on ignoring that basic tenet of capitalism, supply and demand, then they deserve to get the shaft.

Kierthos

What we do now is this:

[CAIMLAS]

First off, we do -not- buy CDs from record labels that align themselves with the RIAA. This is a no-brainer.

Second off, we do -not- download music by bands that are the larger whores of the industry - Britney Spears, Creed, Eminem, etc. (My question to you is, why do you want to? They suck and are horribly unoriginal).

Third, any music that we download that is under the mandle of the RIAA, we pay for - by mailing, paypaling or handing the musicians we like money for the downloads. You will likely get a large degree of personal grattitude from someone when you hand them 15$ and say, "I downloaded your albums online, so I wanted to pay for them, because they were good." $10, even, would speak more than buying their stuff. You paid for it because you liked it.

<b><i>More importandly still</i></b>, however, is that we must support our <a href="http://www.wipeyoureyes.com</a>local bands, or our local 'scene'. You can do this by going to shows, buying their CDs, t-shirts and other merchantdise, and just giving them a good ol' pat on the back. (Might not want to try this with some guys, they'll snap your neck if ya do... crazy hardcore drummers) If we don't do this, then all traces of good music will soon disappear, due to discouraged musicians trying to feed themselves, and there being a decreasing pool of 'indie' artists from which the larger msuic industry can choose their whores from.