Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Setback For RIAA In Sweeping Lawsuits

Posted by timothy on from the automation-will-do-wonders dept.

pvt_medic writes "In a set back for the RIAA, last Friday a judge ruled that they have to file lawsuits individually. The judge's decision was that for each John Doe that the RIAA wanted identified they would have to file an individual lawsuit."

19 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. This is SO unfair! by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Funny
    "In a set back for the RIAA, last Friday a judge ruled that they have to file lawsuits individually. The judge's decision was that for each John Doe that the RIAA wanted identified they would have to file an individual lawsuit." [According to the article, filing fees, at $130 per case, could amount to over $30,000.]

    Overheard in the RIAA boardroom:
    But, but,....

    When Hilary was running things here, we spent so much buying that legislation, I don't know if we can afford $30,000 -- and for crap like due process and the rule of law!

    Let's see, to get back the $30,000 in filing fees, we'll have win suits against... 10 more twelve year-olds!
    --
    Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
  2. I feel so sorry for the RIAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... out of sympathy, I promise to only download one file at a time.

  3. Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's important that we all do our part to ensure the defeat of the RIAA and the old Luddite network distribution system of manual labor.

    I encourage everyone to use a P2P network like gnutelliums to share and distribute as much music and video as you can. If we all saturate the Internet with everything we have, the RIAA will eventually realize the futility of their ways and give up.

    Good artists will always get paid as society will always find a way to fund what it likes. The best musicians always performed for the love of medium, not for the money. Mozart, Charlie Parker, The Beatles, etc. would have had no problem making money on today's Internet. It's the mediocre artists who rely on hype and false advertising that keep the current system alive. The best musicians will always be recorded and compensated.

    1. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The best musicians always performed for the love of medium, not for the money."

      Dangerous generalization. Many of the greats of the last millennium -- your Mozart example included -- were indeed chasing money.

      "It's the mediocre artists who rely on hype and false advertising that keep the current system alive."

      Another dangerous generalization. There are plenty of excellent artists who rely on record sales to pay their mortgages and feed their families. There's no correlation between musical talent and being a capitalist.

      "The best musicians will always be recorded and compensated."

      I am glad to see that you are in favor of compensating musicians. Why not let that start with you? I think that respect for others' wishes is an equally good moral base -- that is, if an artist of any sort invites you to download their music or their book or their artwork for free, then, by all means, go for it. But if they insist on being paid for their efforts, respect their wishes. In other words, treat them as you would like to be treated.

      "I encourage everyone to use a P2P network like gnutelliums to share and distribute as much music and video as you can."

      In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!". It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something. Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!".

      To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists. I'll make an exception for Metallica, they have no excuse, since they became popular through bootleg recordings. My issue in perticular is with the companies that back the RIAA. The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy. The fact that they have been sued and found guilty twice of price fixing wrt CDs, signals that they are greedy.

      My largest issue with the record companies is their swarminess to try to avoid bad press by hiding behind the RIAA. Basically saying hey its not us that are suing you its that rabid dog RIAA.

      It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something.

      Or when its price gouging. Tell me seriously why again is a CD more costly then a cassette, even on disks with no additional features. Lets be honest, the Record industry has been duping customers for years. There is nothing like purchasing a CD to find one or two decent songs on it. Napster/Kaaza/etc. showed clearly that there was a market for distributing single songs at a reasonable price, even if that reasonable price was free. iTunes clearly showed that the price point was higher then zero.

      Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.

      I have no problem feeding artists...Its the hundreds of middle men around them that I have a problem with. Note I don't mean the folks that actually contribute to the actual music.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    3. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists."

      Agreed 100%. I wrote "many." I've seen the "down with greedy artists, but give me all the free music I can download" sentiment quite a bit around here. I don't think it's the majority opinion, though.

      "The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy."

      Wow, if that's true, it really sucks. Can you think of a CD that's gone quintuple-platinum yet hasn't recouped its production costs? It's a rare CD that costs even a million bucks to produce.

      "The fact that they have been sued and found guilty twice of price fixing wrt CDs, signals that they are greedy."

      There's a lot of misunderstanding of the price fixing settlement. It's more about Wal-Mart's greed than anybody else's. Remember, the record companies made exactly the same amount per sale when they were giving the co-op money to the TWE stores to run the MAPs. The price fixing only affected you if you bought a CD at Tower Records or one of the other TWE stores during the period that the record companies were giving the stores co-op money, and this was done to prevent the Wal-Marts and the Best Buys of the world from putting specialty retailers out of business by selling CDs at or below cost. The record companies did this to keep the smaller retailers in business, and the settlement means that Wal-Mart is free to continue using predatory prices at the expense of smaller stores.

      "Or when its price gouging. Tell me seriously why again is a CD more costly then a cassette, even on disks with no additional features. Lets be honest, the Record industry has been duping customers for years."

      I'm not sure if you're asking a serious question. CDs are priced where they're at due to something called the "supply/demand" curve. The auto, specialty foods, clothing, furniture, computer peripheral, software and innumerable industries also use the same strategy. It simply means charging the highest price that the market will bear, to maximize profits. It's one of those "econ 101" concepts and I can't stress enough that tons of businesses, big and small, also do it.

      As an aside, music prices have been relatively flat over the past 40 years; in fact, they're going down. The average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US. Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99. That'd be $18.00 in today's economy.

      This leads to a couple more things that I see on Slashdot a lot:

      • Folks taking a feature that's prevalent in hundreds of industries, such as following the supply/demand curve, and singling out the record industry as some sort of monster. I'm not particularly a fan of the record companies, either, but I do know that by and large, the record industry is a crappy one to be in. It's hugely speculative (meaning that they must rely on that one hit to cover the costs of the majority of CD releases, which aren't profitable). Record companies go out of business all the time, and you rarely see an analyst give one a "buy" rating. Net margins in the industry are typically below 30%, which is -- again, this is another important part -- lower than most of the other industries I've mentioned above.
      • Whether you call it greed or I call it the supply/demand curve, or whatever -- many people use this as a moral rationale for piracy. Two wrongs do not make a right.

      "I have no problem feeding artists...Its the hundreds of middle men around them that I have a problem with. Note I don't mean the folks that actually contribute to the actual music."

      If this means that you only buy music from musicians who also record, engineer, produce, distribute, advertise and market their own music, then more power to you! But this is another instance where many

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    4. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an aside, music prices have been relatively flat over the past 40 years; in fact, they're going down. The average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US. Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99. That'd be $18.00 in today's economy.

      I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99.

      This number works out perfectly with your inflation curve.

    5. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I question why it is you think its acceptable to pay what you do for a cd, but also acceptable to pay the same amount or marginally more for a film on DVD.

      The movie comes loaded with extras (typically), and is also 2 hours long, compared to albums, which average 45-50 minutes long.
      Also, whats the production cost on an average movie up to today? I read that Michael Jackson's last album was.... god... I think 7 mill. Most albums cost 10 times less than that to produce.

      Yet Movies, which cost far more, side by side, with the benefits of a cd to a dvd weighed, DVD's are less expensive.

      I just don't get it.

    6. Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media by shark72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99."

      The $13.50 average I mentioned (it's actually $13.42; I rounded up) is from NPD Musicwatch, an analyist firm that covers the music industry, tracking sales and the like. It's down from last year's average price.

      Note that's the average price for new releases. YMMV. CDs certainly may be $17.99 or $18.99 in your area or at the retailers near you, and I highly value your anecdotal report, but in my neighborhood (Silicon Valley) the local retail scene supports NPD's claim. New releases at the local Best Buy are typically $11.99 or less.

      I don't know if NPD Musicwatch tracks e-tailers. If they do, that would swing the number lower, as Amazon moves a lot of plastic.

      I hope this helps.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  4. No Reverse class action? by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around. That's likely a good thing.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:No Reverse class action? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative
      So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around.

      The "class" in a class action lawsuit is a well-defined and indentified group. IANAL, but if I understand correctly you have to belong to the group in question (e.g., "people who bought stock in XYZ Corp. between June and December 1997") and you have to specifically file to join in the lawsuit.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:No Reverse class action? by jhylkema · · Score: 4, Informative

      /* DISCLAIMER

      This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you need/want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.

      DISCLAIMER */

      Quoth the poster:

      So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around.

      Not necessarily. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP 23) governs class actions.

      In a nutshell, the prerequisites are:

      (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

      (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

      (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and

      (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

  5. Congress may be for sale... by uncoveror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but not the courts. At least not this one. The RIAA are the real criminals here, and the ones who should be sued. I hope that Michele Scimeca, the lady in New Jersey suing them for extortion and racketeering wins. Read more about what's wrong with the recording industry at www.dontbuycds.org

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    1. Re:Congress may be for sale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And it certainly looks like Congress was bought when it comes to the DMCA. According to opensecrets the top contributors in the entertainment industry spent between 20 and 30 million dollars to ensure passage of the DMCA.

      And the politicians in Congress have the audacity to tell us we are breaking the law when they have sold themselves out under nothing short of legalized bribery.

  6. Now we just need.... by azuroff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...

    1. Re:Now we just need.... by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...

      I know its a pipe dream, but you might be able to make the legal case that the RIAA has no right to sue due to the fact that they own no copyrights and only the indivigual companies do. That would at least break it down to songs per record company. It would also make it so that the RC would have to come out from hiding behind the RIAA.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    2. Re:Now we just need.... by mad_dog3283 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, that wouldn't work. In all of the letters sent by the RIAA's lawyers to those being sued, they said something along the lines of, "I affirm under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of $label." You are correct in that the RIAA does not own any copyrights, but they have been authorized to act on behalf of those who do.

      --
      Reprise the theme song and roll the credits!
    3. Re:Now we just need.... by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like I said it was a pipe dream...:-)

      So who is the plaintif? Is it the RIAA or the record company? If it is the RIAA, they cannot claim damages since as you and I noted they have no intelectual property to misappropiate. Or is the RIAA effectively acting as a law firm in these cases?

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
  7. Once the RIAA is exposed... by pdcryan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...for the illegal price fixing cartel that it is, under the Sherman Antitrust Act (and others) - the courts will be able to get back to more important things - like locking up the rest of the Food Network's goons.

    All kidding aside - I'd like to see someone pin the RIAA as a "state actor" - and make them respect our first and fourteenth amendment rights.

    "Good for you son. If there is one thing America needs, it's more lawyers. "

    --
    Ryan Kennedy opposes comm