Slashdot Mirror
RIAA File-Sharing Lawsuits Top 10,000 People Sued
An anonymous reader writes "While Firefox broke the 50,000,000 barrier today, the RIAA broke a more
dubious barrier this week: It has now sued over
10,000 file sharers for copyright infringement, making it a good time to ask
if the RIAA will ever throw in the towel. Taking an academic look at
what's best for the industry, this
economics article shows the financial upside to P2P file sharing. And
on the flip side, this
legal article argues that file swappers have a constitutional right to pay
much smaller penalties than the millions of dollars they can be liable for under
copyright law, making the RIAA's lawsuits much less profitable."
Doesn't your corner only throw in the towel if you're getting your ass kicked? From what I understand, the RIAA is settling nearly each of these cases out of court for a substantial profit. If that's the case, why would they ever throw in the towel?
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
The RIAA will never quit suing P2P users because the RIAA is making a profit from it...
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Either the RIAA throws in the towel, or advances in anonymous secure filesharing make their efforts redundant - there are already several very promising and useable systems in development.
Either way, the RIAA can't keep up forever.
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
The day they are out of business, or they have managed to have every customer jailed. Remeber this is their new long term business model.
However, as time goes on the effects will diminish and they will look even more foolish.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You fund these lawsuits every time you buy a CD. Then they sue you, you settle and they sue even more people. Solution: stop buying CDs.
The RIAA will never quit suing P2P users because the RIAA is making a profit from it...
How right you are! Imagine, 10k lawsuits. Let's assume that each one of them settles for an average of $5k (a pittance compared to what they could get by copyright law, and I believe many of these settlements are much higher).
At $5k a pop, 10k of these settlements is worth $50,000,000 dollars.
How long will it be before the profits from lawsuits exceeds that of music licensing for the RIAA? Is it really that far fetched to imagine? Settlements are better business than records ($5k vs. $9)...
Perhaps, like antivirus companies spinning virus out into the wild, the RIAA will begin quietly sponsoring P2P programming efforts in an attempt to expand their new market (defendants)...
These are strange times...
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
.... only after people stop settling outside of court and ask for jury trials.
-Palal
The solution is for people to stop buying CDs and listening to music created by members of the RIAA. Until you stop doing this the "problem", as you put it, will continue.
Until the guys who first downloaded the tracks from you (legal copying, with license to distribute) come forward, give evidence you publicly released your music, and you get a class action from 10,037 people for (slander/libel - I can never remember which is which).
Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
WE come up with a business model that THEY can live with (from/via/off of/.../whatever.)
They're in the business of sueing people until they don't have a reason to do so anymore. That's what they've been doing since the nineteenth century and before.
Every advance from the piano roll to the MP3 has been met with the kind of dogged, to the death, resistance normally encountered in a Pit Bull arena.
When you're stealing other people's creativity and have none of your own, you defend your right to be a parasite with legal anti-piperazine.
Of course, every now and they they go too far and get their wrists slapped, like the last time they were convicted of price fixing in California.
They emptied they warehouses filled with every piece of back catalog crap that time. "We ripped you off. Have this audio dog, uh, wonderful vynil recording of "Milton Freebish sings 'Sony and Cher'" album to make up for it."
You want's to get them to cease and desist, you have to figure out a way that they can keep on collecting money for other people work every second of every day.
That's when they'll shut up. Not before. They're thieves egardless of how they justify it. And YOU are going to have to find them a new pocket to live in.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Granted that copyright infringement is against the law and should be pursued more by the government like other crimes that the government has established, I wish the government would rerecognise their belief in a free economy and that no company has any right to profit nor compensation for loss of profit.
I don't do MP3, so I'm free of this, but the core here is not copyright infringement, but rather the price of distribution of a product. This is pretty much exclusively what the RIAA companies make money on. The sale of an aluminum disc impregnated in plastic. However, these guys are getting their music in an inferior format with a different distribution channel at a much lower cost of distribution.
Am I missing something, or is this how supply and demand works? I pay 80+ dollars a month for cable and about 40 for broadband internet that satisfies a good deal of my music concerns. I just paid almost $2,000 for my car stereo in my new car and I buy blank CDs in bulk. In the past week I spent about $150 in concert tickets.
What the fuck else do these people want from me? Its getting to the point that it almost appears more productive to simply go to prison or jail the rest of ones life, but even then your subject to chronic searches and whatnot to make sure your not doing what your "supposed" to do while there.
In summary, fuck you RIAA. Provide at some bare minimum a competing product to p2p downloads, or just go away. Music has lasted before you, and will outlast you. Your relationship with the music industry is entirely up to you. So long as you are providing a valuable product to consumers, you will exist. So long as you sue your customers, your annoying.
I'd bet that the economics of P2P depend on the "popularity" of the artist. P2P file copying probably helps obscure artists because it helps listeners overcome the cost and risk barier of buying an unknown artist. But file copying probably hurts more popular artists when people download must-have (but don't neccessarily want ot pay-for) manufactured hits by a known artist. P2P fragments the listening population by connecting them with more artists. In theory, the total outcome can be better as P2P file copying expands people's interests and helps them find music they consider worth paying for.
On the other hand, RIAA, I'll wager, is more concerned with preserving blockbuster artists than in promoting obscure ones. It's easier (and more ego-boosting) to ride the back of a Britney Spears than it is to promote a thousand no-name bands. Moreover, its more cost-efficient for music distributors to sell 10 million copies of one album than hassle with selling 15,000 copies of a 1000 artists. Even in a digital age, creating a distribution relationship with 1000 artists is harder (and less sexy) than having a single relationship with a megastar .
Fragmentation of people's musical interests is not in RIAA's best interests even if it expands the total music industry by more effectgively matching content creators to content consumers.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
it looks as though the US Government is trying to place more importance on intellectual property (ip), without regard for individual rights and rights of fair use. first, there is that insane law that's just been passed about getting 3 years for distributing a pre release video. it feels that it will only be a matter of time before the audio version of this come out, and/or all digital content being entirely painted with criminal penalties.
the problem here is that individuals have come up with new ways of distributing content using the internet that the big players do not know how to incorporate into their business models without (they think) losing money. why is that? do they really think that sueing everyone into submission will insure that their content will not be distributed? and even if the US succeeds in 100% preventing ANY file sharing or content ripping, what about the rest of the world? will they extradite all of their 'criminals' so that the US can put them all in jail?
the content creators need to find that fast, easy distribution method that consumers will pay for. the government needs to stop giving away your rights, and finally, the people need to stop giving the politicians the ability to do this. how has this happened?
How many of the suits have gone to court, rather than being extorted... urr... "settled" out of court?
Of those that weren't settled out of court, how many are slated to go to trial?
Of those that have gone to trial, what are the results of the trail? How many traders were found guilty? What evidence has the RIAA presented thus far?
THAT is the information I'm more interested in. They can sue as many people as they want. I want to know what the results of those suits are.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Not all music translates well to concerts. Not all artists want to or have the health/lifestyle that permits them to tour or play live continuously. Some depend on album money and honestly wouldn't produce any music without it. I believe the current market can sustain casual downloading if it is followed up with enough music purchases, but you can't enforce that and if people were told tomorrow that such an honor system was in effect the industry may very well be bankrupt by the end of the year.
Watch the lifecycle of a BitTorrent stream if you don't believe me. Features like ratio-enforcement and banning appear because if you rely on the goodwill of the masses you'll get screwed over. That doesn't even take money into account -- just bandwidth.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Perhaps I am repeating myself or someone else, but the point is not what is done with digital content, the point is what the laws are doing. Currently, they are reinforcing an outdated and unworkable distribution business model for the film and music industry.
The lure of being in those industries is the money that can be made... now there is a cultural revolution against that business model. The time is right for revolution...so to speak.
We keep talking about what is right and what is wrong, but we seem to skip over the facts. The facts simply stated, are that the law supports an outdated business model. The music and film industries cannot continue to force their ethics on the populace when the populace is revolting. Music and video content is simply not worth what is being charged. The current distribution and licensing practices DO NOT work in the information age. They used to work, but no longer. When anyone with a basement and some cheap electronic technology can duplicate what big industry is charging huge dollars for is common place as it is today, the old business models don't work.
Its time for the music and movie industry to get into the 20th century (yes, I said that right). Its time for them to get with reality. Sure, they deserve to be paid for their work, just like the rest of us, but like the airline industry, they do not deserve to be propped up by government so they can survive. If they cannot survive the changes on their own, so be it. Its time for a change, the old ways are not working.
Still, I have not seen or read any evidence that file sharing has damaged either industry, yet they seem to have the government's permission to harm anyone they feel like. This smacks of conspiracy and business based totalitarianism.
Sure, you can tell me that I'm wrong, that I have not respected the rights of these industries, but I have done something that you did not expect.... I have stated that its time for evolution or revolution. I don't particularly care if they go broke... there are literally millions of artists that want a cheap and easy way to get their art to the masses without having to deal with those big companies and their bias.
Anyone that thinks this is about the law is just kidding themselves... this is about evolution. It is time for thing to change. I'm tired of paying taxes just in case I decide to break a law, I'm tired of being thought to break the law before I actually do, I'm tired of people trying to enact law to prevent me from breaking other exisiting laws.
If business finds that the current laws are unenforcable, they need to look at what they are doing and how they are making their money. Small businesses have to weigh the value of persuing a patent infringement case against larger companies and individuals against what is good for the business. The music and video industries have SO MUCH MONEY that they don't have to worry about it... they just bring the litigation because the cost is a pittance against what they stand to gain. The patent and copyright laws have, in essence, broken the anti-trust laws, in order to protect the very rich and powerful, those that don't need protection.
They have successfully perverted the intent and design of the laws they use to protect their profits.
IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE... EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION
YMMV
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Firstly, 10k sued? I'm not sure if settling out of court counts as a lawsuit. You'd actually have to go to court.
This sensational language and the outright, blatant lies common in recent /. headlines are forcing me to call /. an overblown Internet tabloid, infested with a veritable hive of juveniles and self-absorbed laymen. But that's beside the point.
How about this: stop the rhetoric. Then join the EFF. Convert your BS to something much less so.
Why? That's a ridiculous argument, really. In fact, it is the argument that the RIAA uses: "Think of the children ... I mean .. uh ... the artists! Think of the artists!" How much do we have to put up with from the music industry's leaders before we realize that the music isn't worth it. It just isn't. The RIAA (and their soulmates, the MPAA, oh, and let's not forget Disney) have already done permanent damage to the United States' legal system with far-reaching effects. Don't excuse their aberrant behavior by invoking the artists. I might be more accepting of your point of view if the RIAA hadn't been manipulating, cheating, ripping off and otherwise abusing their "artists" for damn near a century.
... I've only bought one (ONE) disc since then, regardless of whether or not I like music (and I do.) The fact they've caused significant harm to the public domain, rewritten copyright law to suit their ends with no regard for anyone or anything else, are using Mafioso tactics to extort money from citizens (bypassing due process) are issues that you really should consider before defending the RIAA in the name of the "artists".
Any "artist" that signs a deal with the RIAA knows full well that he is making a deal with the Devil before he drops his John Hancock, is morally complicit in the RIAA's legal intimidation tactics, and so far as I'm concerned has no right to any sympathy from me or anyone else. I've felt this way since I first began to research copyright and the music industry back in 1983 or thereabouts
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well, then there's no need to worry about the artists, in that case, is there? It seems to me that if the artist is dead, the songs should become public domain
then more people would PAY to get into venues where my band is playing.
It's too bad that most bands shut out a lot of potential ticket buyers by playing in bars.
Each year who do you think the wealthiest musicians are? THE ONES WHO ARE TOURING! I've never seen someone make that list just off of CD sales
What does that say about musicians in genres not as conducive to live performance?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal"
-- Adolf Hitler
..and no musician has been paid any damages.
A great day for the music industry.
When I grow up, I want to be a music industry lawyer!