Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Hands out more Lawsuits
Syrae writes "The RIAA has unleashed yet another round of copyright infringement lawsuits against 754 people. Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
Not any more, not after the ridiculous penalties.
BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Just curious
I would complain about my tax money going to pay for these cases in court but you only ever hear of debt collection agencies calling those in the suits now...
So, they sue people that spend more money on music than the average.
So these people stop spending in order to cover court costs, fees, pissed off, etc.
RIAA notices that less people are spending money on music (it must be the filesharers) so they sue more people.
Bet this
At first glance, this would seem futile.
From TFA:
The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.
This is an infinitesimal percent of filesharers, estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions. For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.
Really, though, I don't think it is. I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots. They have gotten away with massively unethical practices for a very long time, and idiots don't do that.
This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal. They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports. This is true despite the fact that they are consistently releasing garbage. But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Just a silly question:
What's to stop the defendant from claiming that they didn't download the files? If you run a WAP, there is virtually no way (short of them seizing your PC) for them to prove that you actually downloaded the files.
With most techno-idiot judges, just claim the "hackers" used your wireless access point to download the files.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Will you please think about the reality of the situation for once? Spare me the holier-than-thou "it's the law" junk. The reality is this: if the media companies were so darn concerned with their intellectual property then they should control the distribution on the front end by whatever means they feel they can implement profitably. This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.
I will emphasize again, for the millionth time: Face reality. Once the media company sells something to me then it is mine and I will do with it whatever I darn well please. If they don't like it they're free to not sell it to me in the first place. Once they've sold this music to the masses, however, I no longer feel any pity for them. No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I got hit at the University of Missouri, Rolla and let me tell you, I never saw it coming. I'm pretty computer literate (CS major that codes alot of low-level stuff)... I thought that I was being careful by staying within the school's system (Samba shares) but they still got it. They were watching inside the network. I don't know how on earth they managed to do that, we have a pretty strict network policy. In the meantime, they dragged through it. I got caught May 5th, 2005, didn't find out until July... never got an action date 'til August. It was awful... although I did start getting music via AllofMP3 (still shady?)
At some point, the media producer sold the media to a distributor. Legally. That distributor then sold the media to the retail outlet. Legally. That retail outlet then sold the media to a customer. Legally. That customer then shared the media with you. Sharing is not theft.
All arguments based on the artificial concept of a license agreement aside... Just what part of this process was stealing?
What is a license agreement? There are two types of transactions: one in which ownership is transferred (sale), and one in which ownership is not transferred (rental). This business about a license agreement is a subversive technique attempting to obfuscate a rental as a sale in order to charge sale prices. 90% of the population would never exchange money for a CD if they knew it were an elaborate rental scam.
The only really fair lawsuit is one of false advertising against the media companies. They advertise sales but they really offer rentals. The fact that the rentals don't have a return date or late fees is irrelevant--Blockbuster does it.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
The study was no surprise. I've pirated music in the past. Today, I spend about $30 a month on the iTMS. My grandmother has never pirated music. She spends no money online for music. This is because she does not own a PC.
Folks who've used file sharing software tend to buy music because they are Internet-savvy and they like music. Copyright infringement is not a prerequisite for buying music online! The important corelations are having a computer, familiarity with the Internet, and an appreciation for getting music via their PC. The music industry can find plenty of people who fall into that category without also falling into the "putting thousands of files into their share directory" category that tends to make people ripe for legal action.
The record industry has acknowledged that they are using a "carrot and stick" approach toward curbing piracy. Apple has just sold their 50 millionth track, and the online music industry is still growing logarithmically. Their approach seems to be working just fine.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
With Yahoo Music providing access to over 1 million songs for $5/month I would think the damages that RIAA can claim are limited to whatever share Yahoo would have passed onto them if these file-sharers had gone legit with a subscription. Or am I just being naive?
One factor of supply and demand that is seemingly overlooked by all on the supply side is the demand for reasonable cost.
We are in the midst of another artificially high "fuel crisis" where any change in the weather, good or bad, somehow means they need to raise the price of fuel. If there was truly a supply problem, the profits of the companies on the supply side wouldn't be earning record high profits. In the US, this is an illegal pricing tactic and somehow it's not being prosecuted... maybe because the US president has strong interests in the oil industry. I recall the fuel crisis of about 20+ years ago and how it ended... and more importantly, WHY it ended. It ended when alternative fuels started to catch on -- specifically "gasahol." It was really soon after gasahol started flowing from the pumps that the fuel crisis came to an inexplicable end, but before that time, it didn't prevent the supply side from doing everything it could to rape its customers.
Back on topic, however, I see a demand for lower cost (read: better value) and the general responses we are seeing. We see what I consider to be "civil disobedience" even if it's technically not the correct expression for this situation. I don't consider it to be criminal as much as I consider it to be an expression that the supply side simply wants too much for something that is considered to have value... just not enough value to the people who would sooner get music this way.
The RIAA's hostile response will be the fuel of change... change they will not like. Just as gasahol started to threaten the fuel industry, independants and online trade will flourish at the RIAA's expense no matter HOW many victims they claim. There will be no "lawsuit into submission."
or psy, or drumnbass, or jungle, or speed garage, or breaks, or hardcore, or any other electronic genre which includes loooooong intros and loooong outros and 32 beats to a breakdown.
i would be happy to buy more cd's again if the price was mroe reasonable. they say its expensive because of the label and the booklet and the such in a cd... but then. a dvd movie is about the same price (20$ for a dvd seems good to me) and they have, bigger capacity disc's, color labels and all. though no booklet. its also almost 2 hours longer and has video in it as well. and more people involved in the making of it. (since in a movie they have to do the audio sweetening too) so i really dont see the point of paying more than 10$ for a cd. or if the price stays the same, online being cheaper. cause of them not making a copy physically at all.
Movies made by a crazy person
http://www.youtube.com/marginalpro
Of course we should share everything, right? Why the hell not? It's not like music and movies costs time and money to create.
How about this: one of you sharers out there go make a record or movie.
Try selling copies of it. Online, or in a physical store. At a price of your choosing.
Now, I'll start pirating your work and sell it for $0.0001. Or I'll even start duplicating it free of charge for everyone.
Uploading a 1:1 copy of your work to *senet, where it will be propagated around the world, in digital form, costs me next to nothing.
And fuck you if you're too much of a noob to secure your product, right?
No wait, we hate DRM too, so you can't secure your product and expect the Slashdot hypocrites to pay.
Seriously, you think this is ok? It might not be stealing, but it's WRONG.
Whichever side of the argument you're on, it might be well to remember that copyright has never in human history been recognized as some natural property right: it's an artificial (and arbitrary) grant of privilege by a government. It's given by the votes of politicians, and could be taken away as easily. I imagine that the people screaming "ILLEGAL" the loudest right now would suddenly reverse course and pound on the "morality matters more than law," trope now used by their opponents if the law were more responsive to the will of the governed than the dollars of narrow special interest group.
Since then I have managed to replace many of the CDs which were physically STOLEN from me, which I once rightfully owned and paid retail price for. I have a box full of album sleeves and cover art to prove it.
I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?
I wonder if my entire CD collection had instead been washed away in a hurricane or destroyed by fire. If we are to believe the RIAA stance that I owned a "license to listen", I would hope that physical loss of my actual media permits me to re-acquire and re-create that media using filesharing.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
What's so difficult about that? RIAA wants to be greedy and use the law (in "merciless?" ways) to bolster greed.
Share only free music and they cannot hurt you. With free music you give free publicity to unknown's and locals, and, more importantly, to those who are giving their stuff for free.
There is enough free music out there that we simply don't need "big media" record industry or anything that it sells.
If people would wake up to that, the RIAA would deservedly die off like the embodiment of greed that it is.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Lets take, as a random example, from amazon, 'The Matrix' (I havn't looked it up before writing this)
The movie itself on DVD: $14.97
The Matrix: Original Motion Picture Score [SOUNDTRACK]: $16.98
So, just the music part of the audio, not even the spoken words of the actors costs $2.01 more than the Digital Video, Audio in Dolby 5.1, Bonus Features, and all, of the DVD version.
Audio CD albums should generally be sold for $5 in little cheap cardboard sleeves
At the current insane prices I have bought 1 boxed set of CD's for $20 in the last year. If they cut their prices to $5 I would probably buy at least 1 CD a week. It's pretty simple, at 1/5 the profit per disc, but selling 50 times as many discs, profits multiply by 10.
Music stores would have much higher sales volume and albums would go 'gold' and 'platinum' a lot quicker. The main problem I forsee is the waste produced by making CD's more disposable, but that could be solved by a good recycling program.
As handy as iTunes might be, there is a good quote; "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"; a truckload of CD's heading to the music store is a more efficent than pumping bits through the internet.
Take for example Elvis(tm).The man has been buried in his backyard since '77 and yet his tunes won't be public domain until,What,2070? The whole point of copyright was so the artist would be encouraged to make more art,Not so some media corp could cash in for a couple on centuries.
And if they played by the REAL rules that this country was founded on we would have such a wealth of great music in the public domain that we might not be having this discussion right now. But thanks to the price fixing record companies(c) the music that was old when we were children won't be public domain until after we are dust (if ever).
The only way to fight other than privacy is your wallet.And for all you free software fans here is an easy way-http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/-This page will tell you before you buy if an artist is in bed with the RIAA. There is even a grease monkey script for Firefox that will show you when you search Amazon which ones to avoid.
There are so many wonderful styles and great artists that aren't owned by the RIAA that by avoiding the bad guys(c) you might actually find some great new music for yourself while avoiding an Evil Empire(tm).
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.