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.

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?

[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

[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.

wow... thats..

[dwgranth]

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

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: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...

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!

Well, they paid for it!

[user no. 590291]

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

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: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.

[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: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.

[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.