Slashdot Mirror
One Man's Check From The RIAA
c0rk writes "I received my $13.86 check today. This was my claim in the Compact Disk Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. I wrote in detail about the letter/check I received here in my blog and posted a readable image of said documentation (not the check though...sorry). Score 1 for the consumer!"
It would be really sad if being slashdotted costs more than the $13.86 check. I mean, the image of the letter alone is 50k, and it didn't have to be. I hope you have a flat rate, no cap on bandwidth. Course, it's smart to have those Amazon referrer links. Good luck with that. Kind of hypocritical. "Hey, look at my RIAA settlement...now buy some music."(fp)
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
And my mail's not being forwarded. I could have used that to buy food. *grumble* Looks like ramen tonight!
Sizzly
Does that $13 check really make up for price fixing on hundreds of CD's that you've purchased over the years (I know it's hundreds for me at least)... It should be $3000 each like they are trying to get from us!!!
$9.99 CD.... Plus tax... Your total is $13.86. We, the RIAA, will keep this check we were going to send you and call it even.
Blogzine.net
I like how the letter doesn't admit fault.
Its just the 'challenged' pricing policies, rather than any of the stronger language that could have been used like 'illegal price fixing pricing policies'.
paul reinheimer
That's not even enough to buy some new CD's. Guess I'll just have to spend it on alcohol!
Hey, with that money, you could almost buy yourself a new CD!
Oh, wait...
... and spend that $13 on an a CD from an independant lable.
LABELS: Capitol Records, Inc d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc, and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp, WEA, Inc, Warner Music Group, Inc, Warner Bros Records, Inc, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc, and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc, and UMG Recordings, Inc; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc and BMG Music; and, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.
when you take all of those together, and divide 70 million or so between them, it's not as hard as a blow as we thought it was... (score +1, interesting)
on a side note, did this really need a second story (score -1, troll)
Runnin' On Empty
Or rather, score $13.86 for the consumer.
The score now stands at:
The consumer: $13.86
The RIAA: $33,000,000,000
Looks like the RIAA's in real trouble now!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
blank cd-r's with my check. If I wait for the right deal, I should be able to 100 for 13 bucks.
While P2P and HTTP may be excellent ways of file sharing, for better or for worse, the RIAA _will_ stop them. Right now they have attacked legally, which is leading P2P developers to make some advancements in the way of encryption, anonymity, etc. The RIAA seems to realize, now, that there really is no way to stop technology. We have already won.
Now they are taking the overused advice of "adopt a new business model", which seems to be services such as Apple's iTunes Music Store, BuyMusic.com , Rhapsody, and soon Roxio Napster 2.0.
The new RIAA attack plan is to offer B2P services. The problem? DRM. If I buy a CD from iTMS, for example, it may be $9.99. I would buy the same CD in store for $14.99. No, I'm NOT paying five bucks for the album art, professionally burned CD, etc. I'm paying for the right to do with it what I want. There's something about having "SOMETHING" in your hands. They can't take that away from you, like they can with digital music.
P2P for me is a way of sampling music before buying the CD. This will never be replaced by a $0.99 deal, since I like to download it, and listen to the song throughout the day. At work I listen to different music than at home. At night, different music from the day. Walking music is different from sittin' or driving music. Rhapsody fails here, so does iTMS... you can only sample certain portions, while in front of your computer. It's not the same.
Why P2P is better than HTTP? It's easier. More people use it, than HTTP was used for MP3 trading. Does it matter? No, B2P will overtake them both. There IS a large number of people who ONLY want digital music, that's why they turn to P2P. These people will turn to B2P once it becomes "mainstream."
For the most part the RIAA doesn't have to do legal battles any more (though it is a nice source of income), they can attack it by offering new online services, just as EVERYONE has been saying for years. Me, I'll stick to brick and mortar, and P2P though.
Score 1 for the consumer!" And score 1000000 for the lawyers!
I'm putting this in anonymously because suggesting to donate to EFF is a great thing, but also a karma whore move.
So anyway, get yourself over to the EFF donate page and give them the money. It's quick and painless.
.
My check from the RIAA... Confused yet?
My being part of a class action law suit paid off. This morning I received my portion of the settlement made due to the Compact Disk Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. I filed a claim to be part of this class action suit about a year or so ago... anyone having purchased a Music CD between Jan1st, 1995 and December 22nd, 2000 was eligible to redeem part of this settlement. Surprisingly, I was part of this demographic since I will on occasion purchase certain artist's CD's whom I deem worthy of my entertainment dollar.
This is essentially my being reimbursed for the financial damages I suffered as a music CD purchaser during a time when CD pricing policy was overwhelmingly unfair to the consumer. I received approximately $14.00 as restitution from both record companies and music retailers. These companies and retailers where indicted for violations of the Sherman Act which works to prevent companies from engaging in shady business practices... in this case price fixing. The defendants attempted to exploit their MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) policies to cheat the consumer. The willingness of the defendants to settle with plaintiffs (that's me) with a significant pay out, $14.00 of which will be deposited in MY bank account, more than confirms their guilt.
Here is a list of the defendants (that restitution... these are the guys supplying it):
LABELS: Capitol Records, Inc d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc, and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp, WEA, Inc, Warner Music Group, Inc, Warner Bros Records, Inc, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc, and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc, and UMG Recordings, Inc; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc and BMG Music; and, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.
This victory, though not a MAJOR blow to these giant conglomerates, does feel good at time when music lovers are being actively hunted and sued for copyright infringement by the RIAA. I will more than likely use a portion of my settlement to invest in what I consider a legitimate and fair business model --- iTunes. If the RIAA had jumped on the legitimate internet distribution band wagon instead of conspiring to rob the consumer with their aging CD business model through price fixing, maybe they wouldn't be up to their ears in legal fees these days.
My thanks go out to the legal teams and active citizens who were instrumental in the success of this litigation... score one for the consumer (there is a statement you don't hear much anymore).
Here is a scan of the letter I received from the legal team representing the plaintiffs... though I'm still waiting for my personal letter of apology from the RIAA... but I'm not holding my breath. My check was attached to the bottom of this letter, but is not pictured here for obvious reasons...
*****
February, 2004
Dear New Jersey Music Purchaser:
As Lead Counsel for the Private Class Plaintiffs, we are pleased to enclose payment for your claim in the settlement of the Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. This lawsuit was brought by the Attorneys General of 43 states and three territories and by counsel for PRivate Class Plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of music CDs. In accordance with the terms of the court-approved settlement, payment is being made to music purchasers who filed a valid and timely claim.
Whether you filed your claim online at the settlement web site, www.MusicCDSettlement.com, or by mail, the attached payment represents full payment of your portion of the Settlement. Please note that the attached payment instrument must be cashed by May 20, 2004.
It is a pleasure to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion and to return value to c
Wheres mine?
Ban Reality TV!
as you drool over your measly 13 bucks, how much did the lawyer$ take home? class-action lawsuits are all the rave now and make $$ mostly for them. similar to micro$oft type settlements where the plaintaifs get a *free* copy of something from M$ and the lawyer$ get cost$, fee$, and other itemization$ paid for. no one wins here but the lawyer$.
now....go get ya a burger.
Are you NUTS? The consumer got completely SCREWED on this deal. The ONLY winners here with the record labels who took in BILLIONS in extra profit because of ILLEGAL price fixing and all the consumers got back was a tiny percentage.
Score 1 my ass!
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
You agreed to pay the price. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to buy those CDs.
I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.
But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
As it is, they're giving you a check based on the average overcharge. People who only bought a CD or two are getting the same amount as people who bought dozens or hundreds of CDs.
There's no way the RIAA is going to count reciepts for everyone that requested a check and give proportionatly the same to everyone. Do you even have reciepts for all those CDs to prove you bought them and when you bought them?
It's just a lot easier to divide the entire fine by everyone who requested compensation and give equal size checks to everyone regardless of how much they spent.
And this is perfectly reasonable since nobody forced you to buy any of those CDs. If you're mad about how much you pay for CDs, buy them used. Use that check to buy used CDs so that none of the money goes back to the RIAA. And then stop buying new CDs.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Since $13 bucks is only enough for a McRottens lunch, why not donate it to a fund to help against the RIAA. Slashdotters can be free to give it to whom they please. Suggestions?
I don't know about you, but I JUST want the right to download the song, no service from anyone. I was considering this before when I saw tapes in a record store. If the tape costs $10, and the CD costs $15, am I legally in the right to buy the tape, then download the tracks of the CD, and burn them to CD? Presumably some of the money spent on the tape goes to the actual production of the tape, so how much does it cost for just the right to listen?
This new 'legitimate' downloading helps answer this, kind of. I'll use iTunes as an example.
It costs $0.99 per song to download from a 'legitimate' music service.
$0.33 go to Apple for their storing and serving the song. $0.66 go to the record label.
My question is: Will they ever sell "licenses" to download songs at $0.66/song, and let you obtain the song however you please? (p2p)
Not enough people signed on, indicating (1) not enough people were aware of their rights, (2) not enough people cared, or more likely (3) not enough people understand just how evil the RIAA is.
I'll be getting a check, and I know what I should do with it -- give it to a local school.
I know of one person who received such a check. If I heard it right... this person tried to cash the check and it bounced.
My question is: Will they ever sell "licenses" to download songs at $0.66/song, and let you obtain the song however you please? (p2p)
No.
I hate hearing about that damned settlement. CDs are luxury items, and as such they're worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. Obviously however much you've been paying for CDs is all right for you, otherwise you wouldn't be buying the CDs. That's why I haven't bought as much music since prices have been going up; they're generally not worth it to me. If you feel like you've been taken advantage of, then think about who was willing to pay the damned price. You were. The RIAA does a lot of despicable things, but charging what consumers are willing to pay for entertainment certainly isn't one of them. I'd be ashamed to get one of those rebate checks.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
May I make a suggestion?
$13.86 isn't enough for a new CD from many stores, but you could use the money to buy an album from one of the many excellent artists from non-RIAA record labels such as Matador or Ninja Tune available from the iTunes Music Store.
Or perhaps purchase music for download in unencumbered MP3 format directly from non-RIAA record label Warp Records.
$10 thrown at the first option could get you, if you like rock music, one of the Yo La Tengo albums (if you like rock), Cat Power's "Moon Pix" album (if you like folky rock sung by a drunk manic-depressive woman), or Amon Tobin's "Supermodified" (if you like jazzy d&b-ish techno), and still leave you $3.86 for your own nefarious purposes. Any of these would be excellent choices.
From the second option, if you like electronica, $13.86 would be just enough to neatly buy Boards of Canada's probably-career-high Music Has the Right to Children album plus Autechre's probably-career-high gantz_graf EP and leave you enough money for a soda at a vending machine.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The American way of spelling cheque is check.
Miriam-Websters defines the following:
CHEQUE chiefly British variant of CHECK
CHECK noun
a written order directing a bank to pay money as instructed.
Internic.net defines the following:
Domain Name:SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrant Country:US
The correct spelling (by the editors) is 'check'. If, however, the user resides in the UK, then 'cheque' would be acceptable.
But everyone who cashes their checks, is giving them their personal info in order to deposit the check.
I guess that doesn't matter?
Not a troll, a serious question.
It's not the forum. My little book of papers that I write people's names on and sign to give them money says "Checkbook" on it, the box I get the papers in says they're "Checks", and the papers themselves say "Check" several times. It's called an Americanism, which isn't surprising considering you're visiting a chiefly American run web site. Similarly, we say "color" instead of "colour", "flavor" instead of "flavour", and "television" instead of "telly".
Karma: Contrapositive
wow, so thousands of dollars in legal fees later, we have ... a check for 13 dollars.
I really wonder, why even bother? Did this 'bite' the industry, or the 'violators'? a little. Probably not much.
I don't support this kind of legal action. I believe those who make stuff have the right to set the price. They can collude, conspire, or whatever. I don't care. if they're being unreasonable, I won't buy.
How much more effective could the community who was holding this lawsuit be by boycotting and organizing? a lot more effective than a lawsuit, which is long, drawn-out, and up to the capriciousness of a judge rather than our own individual decisions. How could I get $13.86 back? by refusing to do business with unreasonable companies. People say in previous posts to this thread 'i've bought $3,000 worth of merchandise and was overcharged more than $13!' and to that I say 'why the hell did you spend $3,000 with a company you thought was overcharging you?'
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Score 1 for the consumer!
Why have Americans taken to calling themselves Consumers? Your real power lies in Law, that law is written by CITIZENS. If your preceding citizens hadnt written some pretty keen laws, you current "Consumers" would be out $13.xx.
I cant stand it when people call me, or anyone else a f'ing consumer. Its goddamn offensive.
Too bad that copy of the letter you made was illegal. The RIAA will be by shortly to deliver your subpoena.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
For those of you who aren't keen to the way these settlements work, I'll enlignten. The lawyers get paid right away based on the total amount of the settlement. The consumers, plaintiff's, etc. get their money later, if not never.
The reason why insurance of all kinds is so high is because of this unending battle between insurance companies and trial lawyers. And you would think that insurance companies would be your friends in this type of situation, but they aren't. The more letigious society is, the more insurance you need. The more your insurance costs, the more money the insurance company makes with their margins.
I want to illustrate how bad this problem has become. Lookup "tobacco settlement lawyers fees" and see the billions that they collected. Also keep in mind the trial lawyers represent THE largets lobbying group in Washington, and not to spark a party line issue here, but the majority of their money goes to Democrat candidates. This is from triallawyersinc.com :
Out of total U.S. tort costs of over $200 billion--more than 2% of GDP--Trial Lawyers, Inc. grosses $40 billion per year in revenues, or 50% more than Microsoft or Intel and twice those of Coca-Cola.Anytime that someone gets a retarded amount of money from some EVIL corporation out there, society on a whole is raped of the value of a hard-earned dollar because someone got something for virtually nothing. That means those who are producing carry the weight of that injust money redistribution on our collective shoulders. My big problem with trial lawyers is that they don't make life one bit better for anyone. When I program, I feel like I'm saving people some time and making life a little better for everyone. Trial lawyers do nothing but obstruct the progress of those that try to make life better. I think of them as financial and quality-of-life terrorists.
This "something for nothing is harmful" principle can be applied to every societal problem: welfare, prescription drugs, government health care, government housing, etc..
I urge you to all not celebrate those who get something for nothing. It is not a victory for the common man. It is just more burden for the common man to bear.
This is the same trick as MS does.
Be legal if possible, but if not, then be illegal as hell. Make a ton of money and try not to be caught. If you are caught, then hold it off for as long as possible. The interest alone more than covered all of this. Sad, but true.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
lawsuit are what corporations understand because it costs them omney. This is a strong deterent.
Quit frankly, there needs to be a cap on what a trial lawyer can make.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Despite the fact that I could have legitimately signed up for this, for the Microsoft rebates, and various other class-action settlements, I absolutely refuse to do so. The vast majority of class action lawsuits in America these days are just as big a scam as anything the RIAA or Microsoft has ever pulled, and I refuse to be a part of them. Score 1 for the consumers? No, score 1 for the lawyers who walked away with millions. Score nothing for the consumers who walk away with peanuts and no real change in the way business is being done.
Are you fed up with politicians too?
Well, since voting isn't going to change anything (re: 2000 election), and electronic voting is going to change even less, what are you going to do?
Simple - the answer is get a gun, a knife, a baseball bat or anything and get out there. You can't be a part of the revolution sitting at a keyboard! The army may have tanks defending the RIAA and W, but they can't stop ALL the people.
You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem
not just on the bandwidth either. the obviousness of the riaa legal ploy is really quite brutal. jack prices in collusion with others, pay next to nothing for manufacturing, lure in first time artists with explosive first albums and force them to sign a crappy contract, then do this for 20 years. then get taken to court and make everyone who want's a check worth less than the cost of a new cd in the store run the red tape to get it (no sir i have never downloaded music). any thoughts as to how much money was made, in profit, from the scam? sounds like piracy to me.
I'm glad I opted out. The two most evil industries in America (music business and software, specifically Microsoft) seem to think that we're all whores: they rip off the public, abuse the rules of the marketplace, and then throw a partly sum at the victims.
Rishi Chopra
www.rishichopra.org
Wouldn't that be "lifestyle" instead of "telly"?
Q. What happens if I go over my bandwidth or disk usage limits?
A. We will be charging overusage fees for bandwidth and disk overusage. We haven't yet set the rate for those fees, and we will not actually be charging them until we have an option in place to purchase additional bandwidth or disk space at a lower cost. In the time being, the statistics on the control panel should be a good gauge as to how much extra bandwidth and disk space you'll need.
Guess they are stealing that business plan from the Microsoft playbook.
I think, therefore I thought.
the RIAA lost. and that's the important part here. if the RIAA lost a hundred million dollars, the consumer gained nothing, then this would still be a good day. any and all tools we can use to destroy the RIAA and the poeple who run/ran it are justified.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
luxeries
luxary
before you ever say anything again, both of you should learn to spell. How many more guesses do you need to pick the right vowel here, dumbasses?
I have a great idea: let's kill all the lawyers! Then, when your boss fires you because he doesn't like your hair, you can go suck your thumb. When your deadbeat son gets arrested for drug possession and thrown in jail for 50 years, you can whine like a baby. When your REAL freedoms get squashed, you can bitch and moan and post half-assed raving nonsense on Slashdot. Because that's all you'd be able to do without trial lawyers. [/sarcasm]
Why is everyone here so down on lawyers? Realize that many class-actions cost millions to litigate, and you, the beneficiary, aren't paying squat for it. If the law firm loses, they eat it, not you, and it could cost seven or eight figures. Did you want to pay the RIAA $14 if they won their case, and not the other way around? Did you? If you think equity redistribution is unfair in a class-action, propose a better solution, don't just accuse people of being terrorists.
And while I'm ranting, there's one more thing I'd like to get off my chest. Lawyers, despite what people may think of them, generally do what they do out of a desire to help people. Yes, it sucks that some people profit off of other people's misery; however, if there weren't a system of redress of grievances, everyone would suffer. Injustices aren't righted by computer, they're righted by people, and those people have to get paid.
Some of the lawyers I know work just as long as the programmers I know (including myself), and many work much, MUCH longer. Maybe, if you'd get off your elitist high-horse and actually TALK to a lawyer, you might get a different impression of them. Oh, and one more thing: if you want to maintain your attitude, then that's your business, but I never heard of a trial lawyer getting ass-pounding prison time when he was in dire need of a good programmer.
[/rant]
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
I own about 4 or 5 thousand lps, cds and cassetts, and they think a lousy $13 is going to make up for a lifetime of gouging?
Sorry, I have only read a few replies. This topic simply annoys me to no end.
Pretty much ever CD I have purchased, I would have bought regardless of the price (within reason). To me, within reason is $10 - $20 U.S. dollars. I see it as basic econ (although, it is far from that, but I digress). I wouldn't buy a CD from a band if it cost $5 if I didn't like the band. But I would pay $20 for a cd from a band I liked. A music CD is a luxury! No one is going hungry because of the price of a song. For the music I like, I will pay pretty much anything. Oddly, my favorite band it the Grateful Dead. TONS of free music, yet I own most of the groups CDs that were released on the record label. I didn't buy the CDs because I felt obligated, but simply because I like the effen pictures.
To me, this entire music arguement is a bunch of tight ass white boys whining about nothing. If you like the music, you will buy it as long as the price is reasonable. What is reasonable varies from person to person, but you are talking about a piece of insignificant "sheet". A dollar or two or three really doesn't matter. You do NOT need to own a CD in order to stay alive. A couple of bucks is truly meaningless in the realm of music.
Is there an easy way to check? Like a boycott search engine or something?
Yes.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
...that encourages businesses to screw consumers over. A class action lawsuit is sometimes the only way to make a company feel any pain for their actions. The government either doesn't care enough or doesn't levy fines large enough for the business to take notice. You might have a great lawyer, but as an individual you aren't going to get a judgement or settlement large enough to make the company change their business practices.
Score 1 for the consumers? No, score 1 for the lawyers who walked away with millions
What, so you want to leave the money in the hands of the business that screwed you over? Thats frikkin genius. If it comes down to negligent/criminal executives having the money or giving it to someone who doesn't need it, I'd give it to Warren Buffet. So what if the lawyers get most of the money; they *are* the ones doing all of the work in the lawsuit, and if they don't win they don't get anything.
They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was not letting the world know of his existence. Well the devil must be pretty envious right now, because companies have convinced gullible voters that eliminating a company's reponsibility for their actions is somehow beneficial to consumers.
If everyone took the same 'principled stand' that you have, the record companies would just keep breaking the law and keep using their monopoly to overcharge for their products. Way to go, man.
Can't you count to five, dumbass?
I took my settlement a long time ago.
....
The RIAA can shove their check up their
Who will guard the guards?
As an ex-member of BMG Music Club and Columbia House, I can tell you that those $13 mean squat when compared to the amount of money these thieves, extortionist, ect have taken from people that purchase CD's like myself. I only purchase from independent and none riaa affiliates now. And that nice little check is going straight to the eff along with my other support. There is a hell of a lot better music out there that doesnt make KC's top 40, real artist, none of this over played hollywood bull shit.
Angry, angry, angry? While I don't think that your post was dignified enough to warrant a response, I'll do it anyway.
While some anti-trial lawyer brothers may suggest such radical measures, I don't think we should be killing anyone.
As for:
my boss firing me for my hair- If that's the way my boss wants to run his business, so be it. I believe that I can take my talents to a competitor and have my revenge in a productive way, aiding my new company to greatness.
my druggie kid getting bustedYou're right, some firms may go after a business and get nothing out of it. That's good because they probably shoul never have gone after them in the first place. Other firms take notice. Companies large and small won't just bend over and take a settlement up the ass to a frivolous law suit. As you may or may not know, most of these law suits end up in settlements with legal fees taken first.
If you were to read more closely, I believe that you would see that I specifically stated that they were "financial and quality-of-life" terrorists. If the word "terrorists" bothers you so much, replace it with "tornados" and I believe it still communicates the point that I was going for.
I must ask, does the amount of time that someone spends at a job justify the work that they are doing? If I were to spend 90 hour weeks on my home counterfieting operation, would that mean that my profession was dignified?
For those who are more interested in the reality of trial lawyers, here's a GREAT COLUMN titled "Why I Hate Lawyers" written by a lawyer.
In all your efforts to counter trial lawyers, please don't break the law.
Or donate that money to your favorite p2p!
So where the fuck is my check, eh?
Buying used CD's was suggested by someone, but that method still indirectly supports the RIAA because someone has to buy the CD's from them to support a used market. A better strategy is to attack their profits by buying music from third world countries such as Brazil where the local economy is very depressed. In these countries, the prices of CD's and DVD's are quite low because otherwise the local people could not afford them. For example (don't judge the music please) Simon and Garfunkel's "Live from New York, 1967" has a list price of $18.98 here in the US and sells for $12.98 on buy.com (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=6056247 3&loc=109&sp=1). The same album can be purchased in Brazil for R$19.00 ($6.42). You can buy them in the US from somlivre.com without any tariffs (http://somlivre.globo.com/ProdutoCD.asp?ProductID =079350). My point is that the record companies can still make a profit producing and selling this album in Brazil for $6.42 even though the "discounted" price in the US is 12.98. So take away their excessive profits by buying them elsewhere.
Wait, people still buy CDs? ... Suckers!
Similarly, we say "color" instead of "colour", "flavor" instead of "flavour", and "television" instead of "telly".
Remeber in the US, a fag isn't a cigarette. A bonnet has no business on a car. Lift is what an elevator does. And most importantly, on this side of the pond you NEVER ask a classmate if you can "borrow" a rubber.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"Also keep in mind the trial lawyers represent THE largets lobbying group in Washington, and not to spark a party line issue here, but the majority of their money goes to Democrat candidates."
If you didn't want to spark a party line issue, why did you mention that? It didn't further your point at all.
I had a friend of mine poke fun at me for spending $1 per floppy disk when he could get 3 for a dollar.
:)
He was also complaining about how his floppies were always going bad! I wonder why?!
I had much fewer problems.
P.S. I have dealt with Office Depot floppies at work. I have had a lot of them go bad, some right away.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Off-topic, but was wondering what the distinction between disk and disc was these days. I thought disk was short for diskette -- like floppy disks. Meanwhile, CD-ROM stands for Compact Disc - Read Only Memory, right?
Anyone care to clarify?
Why is this filed under "Your Rights Online"?
A payment as restitution for price fixing by the RIAA is undoubtedly significant to the Slashdot audience, but it doesn't have much to do with one's rights online.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Sorry for being synical, but what does the RIAA get from the sale of 1 CD? If this guy had pruchased more than 1 CD in his life, the RIAA is still ahead.
If it was determined that the price of CDs were too expensive I would like to receive a check for EVERY CD I have purchased over the years.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Laziness. Just laziness. I didn't have my collection sorted by year, I have more important things to do, whatever....
Now, the _Microsoft_ class action notice I received -- THAT I can't even understand whether I qualify for! Isn't law school supposed to teach people to be succinct at least when it suits their best interests?
Score 10 more for the lawyers.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Much less than a dollar per CD sold actually, RIAA is not a company, it's an industry association with only a limited number or RC on board + big retailers and other orgs and companies connected with the recording industry etc.
What is funny about this settlement is that CD's from indies are by the by more expencive than CD's from the majors that are part of the RIAA that is even if we take output from budget indie labels into account. And indies are often not much smaller as companies than the mayors, in fact some "independent" distributors and retailers are bigger than the ones in the RIAA. However when it comes to screwing artists an indy is much more likely to do so than a major, in fact some indie labels and publishers are quite notorius for NEVER paying any royalities wahtsoever and sometimes have not done so for decades, in contrast this rarely if ever happens with the mayors due to standardiesd contracts and when they are accused of such a behaviour it always turns out to be the artist managment/publishers/master license that is the culprit.
So the people that really overcharge for CD's and routinely pay no royalities get away squat free and RIAA picks up the bill and the average slashdotter thinks that's justice because they do not like some of the other things that the RIAA does.
I'm not American so I may have got this backwards, but where I come from people and companies are not "good" or "bad" under the law, but rather can be held responsible for their actions wich in turn may be considered good or bad depending on the circumstance, local law's rules regulations or conventions. Seeing people gloat over the RIAA because some laywer managed to wrangle a small sum out of them as a cheaper alternatieve than going to court over something that they do not control is a bit sick, the RIAA is facing problems and has reacted rather stupidly from time to time but holding them accountable for everything that's worng with the music business is childish.(the RIAA does not in any way control CD pricing, the combined market share of RIAA companies, while hige is nowhere near big enough to allow that to happen, may infuence it but I doubt it)
Try cheque.
Run out and buy a CD
Businesses have customers upon which the businesses depend. Businesses have no inherent right to people's money, they have to earn it.
The word "consumer" makes it appear that the customer is actually dependent on the business, which is absolutely not the case. Car engines consume gasoline because they have to, a person buys a Toyota because they want to.
It's the principle of free will in a free market.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Maybe instead of handing out puny cheques, a better way to make up for this would be to stop suing file swappers...
Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
13.86 USD huh? Don't spend it all in one place.
Score 1 for the consumer!"
And score 40 million for the class-action lawyers!
Ob text
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Now of days you can get a decent CD Burner for $10, so, go get one of them. And you have $3 for lunch at McDonald's!
I need a sig.
Dave, it comes down to the examples that people see. As an example, an attorney I know who was once a partner in an ISP I worked for stated in all seriousness, "Lawyers should get paid $300/hr. Everyone else should work for $8/hr or less." Then you have the "Injury Claim" lawyers, who as another attorney I know put it, "They've never even seen the inside of a courtroom." make millions swindling the system.
Are some lawyers selfless dedicated individuals? Yes, I know many. Are some greedy self absorbed bastards who would sell their grandmother if the price was right? Yes, I know many.
Why should a lawyer get $300/hr for working in a suit in a clean tidy warm courtroom, when the guy that picks up his garbage, makes his clothes, grows his food, educates his children, etc. are often making do on less (often FAR less) than $20/hr? Hell, a JUDGE in our area only makes about $100k/yr, (~$50/hr. based on a 40 hour work week), and he's got just as much if not more experience and education.
When I see something like the cigarette lawsuits, I personally get disgusted, since these lawyers are raping the American people to a high degree. And why is this? Because most politicians are lawyers, so the people making the laws make them as tough to understand as possible. Try filing an appeal to a case on your own, and you'll quickly learn that a lawyer is the only way to do it. And when you see the work he does, you quickly realize that had the laws and regulations been spelled out in plain English, you could have done the same job yourself.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
I th$ink yo$ur key$board i$ $broke$n$.
By reading this comment, you immediately waive any and all rights regarding it.
That think in your mouth? It's your foot. "Check" is a perfectly acceptable spelling in the US.
"That think in your mouth?" Err, don't you mean thing? If you are going to correct someone, at least try to do it correctly.
"That think in your mouth?" Err, don't you mean thing? If you are going to correct someone, at least try to do it correctly.
he did, but failed.
He didn't fight -- couldn't fight -- the RIAA, so even though the case was bogus ($15,000 for writing a search engine? Will the RIAA now sue google because you can find copyrighted mp3s there as well?), he had to drop out of school to pay it back.
So next time, learn before you post.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Getting a Slashdot-induced bandwidth bill of $3,000: Priceless.
Um, no, actually, that should be...
Getting a Slashdot-induced bandwidth bill of $3,000: $3,000
He's probably going to have to pay that bill one way or another.
I do believe that some jobs require more skill than others, and that different skills are valued differently by society. If society puts a lawyer's skills at $300 an hour and a garbageman's at $20, that's probably capitalism at work, not necessarily some right-winged conspiracy. If everyone's skills were equally valued, we'd have something like communism. Not that I'm arguing for or against communism, but it's not what we have in the US at the moment.
I don't quite agree that politicians make laws difficult to comprehend on purpose, but I don't have any first-hand knowledge either way. I don't agree at all that plain-English laws would help the situation. COBOL is written in plain English, or at least they tried to design it that way. Does that mean any Joe off the street can write COBOL? Of course not. I wouldn't pretend to be able to defend myself in court, even if the laws were plain-English, because that's a skill that is acquired, through years of effort costing tens of thousands of dollars, by someone who has an aptitude for it. I know a lot of programmers who may think they could do a good job, but who would probably freeze under just the public speaking pressure alone. I'm for giving credit where it's due.
As for ranting, I just got tired of programmers bashing lawyers, the same as I get tired of anyone who overplays some worthless stereotype to smear someone. I needed to vent.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
You mean to tell me that American English is somehow more intellectual? Many words are shortened and their spellings changed for the sake of simplicity (read: the average American is apparently too feeble-minded to spell correctly, so the language has been dumbed down to accomodate the inbred multitude). Yes, good sir, it's nothing but obvious that the British form of the English language is truly for idiots. *shrug*.
A nice troll as it were if it is one, and if by some chance you actually would protest that the Americanized version of the language is for a more intelligent race; well, God help your poor lost soul.
-js
Is $13.86 per consumer who files for a refund fair and accurate? Is this a full share of the actual damages? Does this include any punitive damages? For what the record companies made, does this kind of settlement really encourage them to deal fairly with consumers in the future?
That was the whole point of this, I thought; not just to recover funds stolen through collusion, but to smack the offenders around a bit and get the message to them that what they did was wrong. $13.86 per consumer does that?
When the record companies are owned by conglomerates that own TV networks, cable networks, newspapers, magazines, and other opinion-making power that can be used as a threat against any politicians who would oppose them, and you combine that threat with free-flowing campaign contributions, this is the best consumers will get.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
If something is overpriced, doesn't that create opportunity for competitors to enter the market and incentive for consumers to seek alternatives? If CDs are too expensive, entertainment dollars will go elsewhere, to the RIAA's detriment.
I don't understand how you can go into the record store, pay $20 for a Metallica CD and then come back later and say "these colluding SOBs fleeced me". If they were charging too much, why didn't you spend your $20 on a movie, Nintendo game, or concert ticket instead? The fact that you willingly payed the price they asked means you weren't overcharged, regardless of what they could have charged in some theoretical perfectly competitive market.
It's like voting for Ralph Nader and then coming back later to sue him because you feel like you got gyped. You bought his pitch, you spent your vote, and if you don't like what it bought you (regardless of Nader's monopoly on credible ultra-progressive representation in the presidential race), you've got no one to blame but yourself - likewise for the crummy $20 Metallica album.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
Letting price reflect demand is even more important in the case of "necessities". If food, water, or electrical generators are in scarce supply somewhere, you'd be ill served by worrying about price fixing, collusion, and gouging. The high prices are what'll motivate sellers to take the risk of getting those necessities to where they're needed. When a central planner tries to lower prices through fiat, it guarantees overconsumption and shortage. For example, Emperor Julian's price controls on Corn in Antioch.
It may be better to look at older examples that we can analyze dispassionately. Consider Great Northern's "price discrimination" on shipping to Japan or Standard Oil's "predatory" kerosene pricing. They were both deemed antitrust violators in their day, but with hindsight we can see they were both just charging what the market would bear. The RIAA's detractors (in matters of pricing) will seem just as silly 100 years from now as James Hill and John Rockefeller's aristarchs do today. It won't be antitrust suits that increase the supply of music anymore than it was antitrust suits that brought down the price of international shipping or petroleum - only technology achieved that.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
If you owned all the aluminum in the world I could still choose to buy tin or steel instead. Choice among entertainment options is even more elastic.
How is setting a minimum price that you want your product sold at lying? This isn't justice being brought down on someone. It's lawyers sucking blood.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
You have enough interest to understand the justification for antitrust law, but boredom must have set in before you learned about its practical consequences. You've accepted the theoretical justification for something that has proven itself a failure time and time again.
The post you linked to presents a naive position: that antitrust law is a second rate solution to problems price controls could better solve. In theory, antitrust is a shield for consumers. In practice, it's always been a sword for class action law firms and uncompetitive rivals.
Read about antitrust's "biggest hits": Great Northern, Standard Oil, IBM. The actual result of antitrust is always antithetical to its purpose.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
BACKGROUND: I live in an area where we have snow in the winter, and worked for several gas stations during the early 90s.
The price of gasoline at the pump has no relation to the price the gas stations are charged.
- The price the gas stations were charged for gasoline was almost static for 3 years.
- The price at the pump is higher FRI to MON than TUE to THU.
- The price slowly rises over the 2 weeks before any holiday (usually by skipping the decline on TUE.)
- The price is raised on the first warm day after a cold spell. The price rises slowly from mid-May until July 4th. The price declines slowly after most colleges start the Fall session. (The decline lasts until the Thanksgiving increase.)
Most gas stations are very aware of what other gas stations in the area charge. I worked at one chain where the manager was required to record the price of every gas station within a few miles at least twice each week. Then the price would be set to the lowest price of the others.
---
I watched a gas station price war near where I lived. Two new stations opened, and undercut the price of other nearby stations by $0.10/gal. When the other stations lowered their price to compete, these stations lowered theirs. Three gas stations went out of business within a year, and two more followed the second year. One of the new stations kept the price for gas in that area about $0.20 lower than gas stations 10 to 30 miles away, even though they all use the same suppliers, and that area is far from the depots. It is now 6 years since they opened, and the price is still at least 5 cents lower than the surrounding areas.
(I had a long commute at the time, and I saved over 15% on gasoline by always filling up before leaving the area.)
---
The price is usually set by the owners or managers, although it is set by headquarters for at least one chain. IANAL, but it probably would not be considered a conspiracy in the legal sense. They are forced to agree on a price, and all have agreed to choose a price for great profit.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.