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

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

[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.

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: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: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?

Re:You don't speak for me.

[JJahn]

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

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.