Slashdot Mirror
Music Download Pricing Lawsuits Pending?
larry bagina writes "New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has subpoenaed Warner Music Group, apparently looking into allegations of price fixing with Sony/BMG, EMI, and Vivendi, and apparently more subpoenas are in the pipeline. 'As part of an industrywide investigation concerning pricing of digital music downloads, we received a subpoena from Atty. Gen. Spitzer's office as disclosed in our public filings. We are cooperating fully with the inquiry.'"
Who'd have thunk it, the music industry being crooked? So, who are the pirates now?
It does seem maybe these (alleged) crooks may be losing their grip on the industry: getting caught with their hand in the pricing cookie jar, and potential other investigations into payola (the other way they control the flow and exposure to music/artists).
Disclaimer: I know, innocent until proven guilty, but with the propensity and willingness of these (alleged) crooks to string up the customer like so many Christmas (Merry!) lights, publicly indicting/convicting consumers before trial. How's the shoe feel on the other foot? Maybe there really is a Santa Claus(e)!
Arguably he's done it to boost the public's impression of him, but at least he's done something real good to do it unlike latching on to divisive issues. He's punished so many crooked corps: Wall Street, insurance, payola, and now the music companies again. Here's a profile: Wikipedia Profile The consumers will lose a great public advocate when he goes on to become Governor (although one hopes he'll use his clout there to do even more reform.)
You know, the one where they got fined and then CDs still cost the exact fucking same?
It's difficult to not admire the tenacity and inginuity with which he pursues these people. But it's also difficult to make the case that they are punished in proportion to their transgressions. Steal hundreds of millions, but you'll have to give millions back. Where is the disincentive? Collude to steal billions, and be forced to offer rebates that customers won't take wide spread advantage of because we've got to make it convienent for the criminals. These people who do economic harm on this scale, they need to lose everything and spend everyday of the rest of their lives in a very deep, dark, lonely, empty hole. That's disincentive. But to think, we live in an age when half-measures from politicians are genuinly deserving of praise. It's sad.
... wow. While I'm ok with this partilcular lawsuit, when's the last time you woke up and check the news and didn't see few new gigantic lawsuits happening every damn day?
Is it just me, or we have waaay too much lawsuits going on here. I mean, lawsuits are supposed to be the exception, and the regulator is supposed to be the law with the help of a possibility for lawsuit.
Today, we just have a bunch of lawsuits from people raping the system, and no benefits. For how long can the system sustain this?
You know this is millions of people giving part of their wage for lawyer/lawsuit expenses. You have to work more and get less, so that all those lawsuits can happen. Directly or indirectly.
God damn it everything is so wrong.
**head explodes**
Everyone of us!
This is what we have said all along: "Reasonably priced (according to cost, not to traditional prices and unencumbered by nasty DRM schemes, we are willing to pay for music"
If this indictment goes forward, it might give honest distributors the occasion to prove the point. The cost of downloading a song on the Internet is pennies. Even considering a decent profit, a reasonable pricing will do wonders to discourage pirating. The value is there for the consumer and the business model is simple.
The message of this is: stop suing your consumers or your consumers will beging to sue you back!
I've solved the problem on my end.
I don't buy music anymore.
I can live without it -- the real question is, can they live without my money? The answer to that one is probably also "yes", but that's okay. I'm not out to destroy them, I just don't want to be a supporter of their industry anymore.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Because Elliot Spitzer has ambition to higher office (where he'll certainly get my vote), whereas other states' attorneys general are content with sitting on their asses?
Just a theory.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
If Spitzer is doing this for his own good, for the good of the consumers, or just because he felt like suing someone, he is doing a good thing.