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

[Bonker]

Goal? Intimidation.

The legal forces of the RIAA have been tasked with something impossible. Control everyone.

Every dictator who's ever tried to do this before has eventually fallen back on the same tactic: Terror. If you make people fear for their lives for doing what you don't want them to, you can control and them more easily.

Unlike fascist dictators, the RIAA doesn't quite have the power to randomly make people dissapear. They haven't quite bought those laws yet. They're working in it, however. This is just an interim step.

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

compared to tuition...

[theoddball]

...they got off cheap.

but geez, poor scapegoats, I could be next...and school leaves me broke enough already.

$12000 buys how many songs?

[scovetta]

Unfortunately, this is the way it had to end-- the RIAA would lose face to the public if they went for criminal charges, and the $12-17k is a realistic warning to other file traders. If they suit had been for a hundred million trillion dollars (or however must Hilary--err, the RIAA-- estimated as damages), it would have also been a defeat in the public's eyes. $3000 a year, hmmm $300 a month for "unlimited" MP3 downloads? Sounds like a marketing campaign!

Actually, that does sound pretty good, would you pay, say $59 a month or something for unlimited mp3s? I might...

Re:$12000 buys how many songs?

[jez9999]

I wouldn't give you a French franc for any number of mp3s - audio CDs are bad enough, mp3 sound dreadful to anyone with a half decent gramophone.

I think you'll find it's OK. Digital technology nowadays can lower the Khz of the recording, and input all those little scratches and blips you're used to - you don't need to use the gramophone.

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

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?

Re:and how much

[feed_me_cereal]

...and how much do their lobbyists and their puppet politicians get?

They get 30% and the RIAA gets 100%. How, you ask? The artists will have to pay a 30% "protection fee" for the protection against piracy the RIAA has bestowed upon them.

Re:and how much

[standards]

Obviously, the artists should get $0, because of RIAA legal fees.

To be fair, the RIAA should be charging the artists for copyright protection.

Hmmm, kind of like "protection money", eh?

Re:and how much

[JonnyElvis42]

If the RIAA keeps talking about how "we" are hurting the artists, what measures are they taking to give the artists restitution?

Ahh, a fresh mind unspoiled by the cynicism that comes with watching the RIAA's and MPAA's actions :-) The answer to your question is: None! I mean come on, if the RIAA gave some of that money to artists, that would mean less money for the record companies, and that just wouldn't be fair, since it's the record companies perpetrating the extortion, not the artists.

Re:and how much

[istartedi]

Well, $70,000 went for legal fees. $19,000 for publicity, $15,000 for fancy lunches, $11,000 for limo rides, and $45,000 for clothing. We figure the artists owe them somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000.

Pay up, suckas.

Apple pricing suddenly looking better?

[PylonHead]

I bet these kids ended up paying more than 99 cents a song.

Re:Apple pricing suddenly looking better?

[B3ryllium]

Probably only slightly.

But on another note, Kudos to apple for pulling off a service I might actually use one day :)

They seem to have a nice selection of some of the rarer stuff I'm interested in, which is very neat.

wow... thats..

[dwgranth]

12000 - 17000 songs they could have downloaded from apple's site ;)

Damn

[Timesprout]

I was looking forward to them being sentenced to 200 million years hard labour at Burger King to pay off the initial amounts that were being bandied about.

Still 17K is not funny when you are still in school

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.

A Good Defense?

[kolors]

Was Daniel Peng the same student who was threatened with the $98 billion lawsuit? Because after reading Joseph Barillari's analysis of the lawsuit it seemed like Dan would have had a pretty good defense to either have the case dismissed or to be acquitted.

Was paying the $17,000 really in the end the wiser decision? It just seems like he had a solid argument, especially given the recent development with Morpheus and Grokster.

Re:A Good Defense?

[leviramsey]

The US doesn't have loser-pays, although you can sue someone for your legal fees...

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...

Law Firm Names

[limekiller4]

From the article:
"...said Howard Ende, a Drinker Biddle, and Reath attorney representing..."

How do legal firms wind up with names this stupid? There is the oft-mentioned Dewey, Cheatham and Howe but maybe in this case they should have gone for Bendham, Ohver and Quick.

Besides, in my book if your last name is "Biddle," you're automatically an asshole.

My music sharing idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Please comment on this idea.

It is legal for me to listen to a CD and then sell it to a friend, buy it back, etc, over and over.

Let's say that we form a Co-op with 100 members. Each member kicks in $100, giving us a budget of $10,000 with which to purchase CDs. $10 from each member is reserved. The CDs are ripped and encoded.

Let's say I want to listen to a CD. My $10 on reserve buys that CD from the Co-op. While I own the CD, I get to listen to the encoded music (I do not take physical possession). During that time, no other Co-op member may listen to the CD (unless there are additional copies available for purchase due to popularity).

Essentially, a locking protocol would maintain a 1:1 relationship between the listener and physical media.

Once I am done listening, I sell the CD back to the Co-op and my $10 is freed for the next selection.

Is this legal? Has it been tried? Thanks!

Re:My music sharing idea

[Grond]

Please comment on this idea.
It is legal for me to listen to a CD and then sell it to a friend, buy it back, etc, over and over.
Let's say that we form a Co-op with 100 members. Each member kicks in $100, giving us a budget of $10,000 with which to purchase CDs. $10 from each member is reserved. The CDs are ripped and encoded.
Let's say I want to listen to a CD. My $10 on reserve buys that CD from the Co-op. While I own the CD, I get to listen to the encoded music (I do not take physical possession). During that time, no other Co-op member may listen to the CD (unless there are additional copies available for purchase due to popularity).
Essentially, a locking protocol would maintain a 1:1 relationship between the listener and physical media.
Once I am done listening, I sell the CD back to the Co-op and my $10 is freed for the next selection.
Is this legal? Has it been tried? Thanks!

That was essentially the idea behind the my.mp3.com service (you put a CD in your drive, mp3.com software figures out what CD it is, you can download mp3s of that CD from any computer once you login, occasionally you have to furnish the CD again). My mp3.com didn't last long. The RIAA put a stop to it almost immediately.

An identical idea was/is being tried with ROMs: essentially an online video game rental service. Last I heard Nintendo and their ilk were trying their damndest to shut it down.

Of course, it seems obvious to us that such an idea is clearly within the bounds of technology, the law, and reason. The way Nintendo and the RIAA see it, however, is that they can simply get more money by making everyone buy their own copies of games and music, so that's what they're pushing for, technology, the law, and reason be damned.

Well, they paid for it!

[user no. 590291]

So I'm going to get their money's worth. Starting now.

I guess...

[mrpuffypants]

I guess that Hillary Rosen can finally get that cute little Miata that she's had her eye on. /nod to Norm MacDonald and Weekend Update

Let's set up a fund for them

[azav]

Seriously - let's set up a fund to help them pay off their debts to RIAA. I'll put in a buck for that.

Anyone?

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: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:For the sake of the artists

[IshanCaspian]

It was not a music-sharing service. It simply indexed the contents of all of the public shares campus. If I typed in RedHat 7 it would return a list of places where I could get the ISO. There was nothing about it that was specifically directed towards infringing.

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!

And with this...

[cptgrudge]

...I will never buy another cd or music from an RIAA affiliated label for the rest of my life. They have now lost thousands of dollars in sales because of this. They are obviously doing what they feel is right. I must do the same. Unfortunately, this means not listening to some of my favorite bands anymore, but I believe they can be replaced. Nobody has a monopoly on creativity.

Time to expand my musical tastes.

independent-artists.com

boycott-riaa.com

Why RIAA Keeps Getting Hacked

RIAA Affiliated Labels

Hmmm. Can't seem to get to the RIAA site right now...

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.

[mrjive]

No...these "kids" wrote samba (windows network share) spidering/indexing programs that made it easier to find files that might be located on open shares on your network.

This is NOT the same as Joe Sixpack hosting gigs of mp3s on his own computer and making them available to everyone else, this is a matter of going after students writing software that has the potential to be used maliciously (sound familiar?)

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.

Copyright confusion

[code addict]

Okay... I'm really confused about the legality of everything now...

If I buy a CD, I am legally allowed to listen to it. Correct?
Am I legally allowed to play it for a friend while I am present? I would think so.
Am I legally allowed to lend it to a friend for his sole listening? I should think so.
Now... Can I listen to a CD with a friend via the telephone? Doesn't seem illegal to me? Is it?
What about streaming a CD via a webcast to a friend and myself? This is very similar to listening on the telephone... Probably not legal... Why? Is this considered a "public broadcast"? What about the telephone version? Nobody would consider a telephone conversation to be a public broadcast would they?

The line between illegal and legal seems to be very arbitrary, and rather contrived.

Maybe they should follow the Open Source model and give the music away and make money on concerts, t-shirts, etc. ;)

This would also be similar to the way Art sells... $$$ for an original painting, $$ for a limited print, and next to nothing for a poster. I figure it's just a case of particular industry that has become over-inflated in comparison with other industries and is facing a market correction... You can see the panic in their eyes!

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: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.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the "streaming only, no save to disk" thing might have a hole in it.

Of course there's a "hole" in it, you dickhead. Hold a fucking microphone up to the fucking speaker. What the fuck.

Calling shit like that a "hole" completely misses the point. Nobody cares if you ""tee" stdout (aka >&1) from /dev/audio (or whatever they use) to filename.mp3 (or whatever format)" (which would, of course, not even remotely work). If you wanna get your rocks off by stealing music, go right ahead. Apple just wants to make sure that it's not convenient or easy.

You know what it's like? You calling this a "hole" I mean. It's like if I put up a fence around my property. You're on one side of my property, and on the other is a Krispy Kreme. You can smell those donuts, and man, you want 'em bad. You look and look at my fence, but then you suddenly realize that you can just go AROUND my property, around the perimeter of my fence, to get to the Krispy Kreme. And after you do, you come back with your face smeared with glaze and say, "Hey, d00d, there's a hole in your fence look how clever I am!!!!!1" And I'm all, "Shut the fuck up you fat fucking pig, you don't even understand what my fence is trying to protect so you just shut your fucking mouth. Bitch."

Yeah. That's what it's like, that shit right there. Yeah.

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)

Sorry RIAA: law or not no one cares

[Kethinov]

Piracy these days is like liquor during prohibition. It may be illegal, but that's not stopping the masses. I wish the RIAA would just accept that and stop wasting their money busting harmless college kids who just want to listen to music. The RIAA is fighting for a lost cause.

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.