Motley Fool Says RIAA Hitting a Brick Wall

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Motley Fool business site says that the RIAA's litigation campaign is in the end game. Monday it reported that 'the music industry's lawsuit crusade against defenseless college students and housewives appears to have hit the skids,' predicting that the RIAA's tactics are 'all about to change.' Today the Fool confirms that 'the change is happening in Internet time, which is somewhere between "instantly" and "yesterday,"' noting that the RIAA's abandonment of its 'making available' theory shows that the end is near. And this is before the RIAA faces its first jury trial, set to begin Oct. 2 in Duluth."

Comments

Re:Motley Fool... RIAA

[Manuscript Replica]

Hey! We're capital-F Fools, which is totally different from the foolishness of the RIAA. :)

Why did they make these mistakes?

[Maximum Prophet]

Why did the RIAA target people who could defend themselves? i.e. the inocent.

Couldn't they have found a few people who were guilty, guilty, guilty and taken them all the way, and nailed them to a tree? Wouldn't it have been a better strategy to just drop any suit if the defendent was in the least bit sympathetic?

Re:Why did they make these mistakes?

[rde]

Why did the RIAA target people who could defend themselves? i.e. the inocent
I dunno... cos they're idiots?

Actually, that's probably being slightly unfair to the RIAA (something that's quite hard to do). As the article pointed out, it's not enough to prove that people were making files available; they had to prove that the files were actually given away. They could, I suppose, download some of those files themselves, but that raises a few intriguing questions of its own; if the RIAA - which presumably acts on behalf of the Record Label who owns the copyright - downloads a song, does this constitute illegal sharing? After all, you're only giving it to its legal owner.
And if they get a third party to download that song, does that third party become complicit in the crime for downloading a song illegally?

Obviously IANAL or I'd know the answer to these questions.

Re:Why did they make these mistakes?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Why did the RIAA target people who could defend themselves? i.e. the inocent. Couldn't they have found a few people who were guilty, guilty, guilty and taken them all the way, and nailed them to a tree? Wouldn't it have been a better strategy to just drop any suit if the defendent was in the least bit sympathetic? The RIAA's "investigation" is so unscientific, poorly conceived, and inept, that I would say it is calculated to catch anybody BUT large scale copyright infringers.

Re:internet time

[Anonymous Coward]

Its 1itu/0s where itu is an internet time unit, and s is SI seconds.

Go ahead, convert that for me will ya?

Re:Motley Fool... RIAA

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Takes a fool to know another, perhaps?

Yes and no. The RIAA is a bunch of small-f fools. The Motley Fool strives to be a bunch of Big-F Fools.

From the linked page:

Motley Fool was founded in 1993 by brothers David and Tom Gardner. Our name derives from Elizabethan drama, where only the court jester (the "Fool") could tell the King the truth without getting his head lopped off. We're dedicated to educating, amusing, and enriching individuals in search of the truth.

A big-F Fool is one who sees, among other things, people being small-f fools, and isn't afraid to say it.

Where can I donate...

[dada21]

...to enhance that brick wall? I'm thinking maybe some sharp aluminum spikes on the face of it, and possibly a webcam or two so we can watch the violence via YouTube.

Scare tactic

[Necreia]

Scare tactic.

The idea is "If they will sue a grandmother without a computer AND is blind... what the hell would they do to ME??"

Re:Scare tactic

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think the real issue here is the RIAA's inability to see that the whole idea is a bad business move. I agree. When an investment site like Motley Fool gets hold of it, that should tell the shareholders something. Also, NPR's business show, "Marketplace", did an excellent 3- part series last week on the wrongheadedness of the RIAA's litigation campaign, and of alternative business models it should be exploring instead.

Re:Scare tactic

[jeffasselin]

Some of us also understand that the sharing of ideas and of artistic production is more important to our culture and civilization than whether or not rich guy makes 3 millions or 4 millions next year. Some of us live in a country where sharing such media is actually legal if done for personal use.

Re:Scare tactic

[porcupine8]

Even if you understand that it's wrong and agree that the RIAA should be compensated when they do sue someone who is guilty, that doesn't mean you agree that they're asking for reasonable compensation. $750 per song? Do you really think that every time a person puts a song in their shared folder, they deprive the RIAA of an average of 750 legal downloads? Particularly if no one has to have ever downloaded the song from you to get sued?

If they were asking for $5 or $10 a song - and being more careful about who they sued - sure there'd still be some people claiming they should never ever sue anyone, but I think many people would be at least a little more sympathetic. At least I'd only think they were being silly and self-destructive for clinging to an outdated business model, rather than seeing them as extortionists and fear-mongerers. And given that they're settling for $3000, you can't tell me that they actually need the whole $750/song for legal fees, etc. They use it as a scare tactic, plain and simple, so they can get their $3k with no fuss and muss.

Re:Scare tactic

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Even if you understand that it's wrong and agree that the RIAA should be compensated when they do sue someone who is guilty, that doesn't mean you agree that they're asking for reasonable compensation. $750 per song? Do you really think that every time a person puts a song in their shared folder, they deprive the RIAA of an average of 750 legal downloads? Particularly if no one has to have ever downloaded the song from you to get sued? If they were asking for $5 or $10 a song - and being more careful about who they sued - sure there'd still be some people claiming they should never ever sue anyone, but I think many people would be at least a little more sympathetic. At least I'd only think they were being silly and self-destructive for clinging to an outdated business model, rather than seeing them as extortionists and fear-mongerers. And given that they're settling for $3000, you can't tell me that they actually need the whole $750/song for legal fees, etc. They use it as a scare tactic, plain and simple, so they can get their $3k with no fuss and muss. Hence the defense that the RIAA's $750-per-song-file damages theory (2000 times the actual damages per song) might be a wee bit unconstitutional, since, as Judge Trager said:

[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs' actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, ("Rogers Aff.", [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, ("Sinnreich Aff."), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense."

Re:Scare tactic

[alexgieg]

One should not need to agree, that such copying amounts to theft, to understand, that it is wrong regardless.

Not really. I myself was a VERY strong opponent of copyright infringement until ten years ago. I only changed my mind after I got hold of economics studies, more specifically in the classic liberal (not the US-kind of social liberalism) and libertarian traditions, then advanced into the realm of political theory.

There are A LOT of arguments out there against copyright and patents, ranging from the economic to the historical, from the social to the political, and dismissing all of this on the basis that "copying is obviously wrong" amounts to nothing more than a very crude oversimplification.

If you want a simple example, here's the historical one. Since the beginning of recorded history up until the first half of the Modern Age, the copying was considered by EVERYONE, from writers to actors, from musicians to singers, from inventors to manufacturers, as an obvious right. Libraries, for instance, existed for thousands of years, and beyond allowing you to take a book and read it, they all had full teams of scribes who would copy any work a customer wanted, or, if he so wished, would allow him to do the copy himself. Everyone interested in any intellectual production did this, and everyone felt it was the natural way of things.

It was only half-way through the Modern Age, and at first only in certain regions on Europe, that thing started to change. It took centuries, literally, for our system of "copying rights" to develop and turn in 180 degrees how we handled the subject. And while many industries organized and flourished around and from this system, it never, ever, ceased feeling unnatural to those taking contact with it for the first time.

What the Internet, and the "pirates" in it, are doing, thus, isn't so much contrary to the way things ought to be, but quite the opposite, a return to way things always were. A way that was artificially twisted 400 or so years ago, but is now being slowly and painfully put straight again. In this matter, they're surely a bunch of very conservative old-timers as one rarely sees. ;-)

If this is the case, how can they be "wrong"? They're "wrong" only from the very limited perspective of a limited subset of modernity and most of the contemporaneity. From the perspective of the (25 times longer) Ancient and Medieval worlds, their actions are pure common sense.

If they win, and they will, the Copyright Age will be seen as nothing more than a very small period of time sandwiched between the two huge Copyrightless Ages: the one that existed before, and the one that is starting right now.

The faster the "progressive" copyright-defenders accept this, the better. For everyone.

Re:Scare tactic

[Svartalf]

The problem is... You are applying the concept of "theft" to the wrong thing.

It's NOT theft. Congress delimited it quite correctly. "Intellectual" property isn't property in the normal sense.
It's a State (as in the Union of States) granted Monopoly over the right to produce copies of the protected work(s).

In the case of Copyright, it's the right to produce copies or derivative works of a piece of music, literature, or
other art- and to distribute said copies or derivatives to other people.

In the case of Patent, it's the right to control the manufacture of a device that meets the description of the Patent
grant or to make derivatives thereof.

In the case of Trademark, it's the right to use a given phrase or illustration to represent your work, company, or product.

These are given for everything except Trademarks for a limited time to encourage the development of more works of
similar or different nature.

They're NOT property. They can't really be "stolen" in the sense of the definition of theft. When I steal (theft)
something, you are deprived of the use thereof of the item in question. With infringement, you are only
deprived of the right to control the replication or derivation of a protected work. You are not deprived of the
use thereof as you still HAVE the item in your possession.

You might be able to apply the theory that when I infringe on one of the aforementioned right grants from the
government, that I'm stealing money from the party being so infringed. Unfortunately, the law doesn't see that
this way. With the so-called "intellectual" property, there are no guarantees you will see a dime from it, no
matter what you might say to the contrary. All that has been done is that your rights to reproduce something has
been infringed upon, which isn't theft.

Please refrain from conflating the two- it's part of the problem everyone's having and it's the same type
of games the media companies and their representatives, RIAA, MPAA, etc. have been at. Right along with this
lawsuit BS that's hopefully coming to an end.

Re:Scare tactic

[TemporalBeing]

If they win, and they will, the Copyright Age will be seen as nothing more than a very small period of time sandwiched between the two huge Copyrightless Ages: the one that existed before, and the one that is starting right now.

First, read my other comment in this topic as I address some points there, but don't want to repost the entire thing here, and this is especially relevant to your statement quoted above.

If you want a simple example, here's the historical one. Since the beginning of recorded history up until the first half of the Modern Age, the copying was considered by EVERYONE, from writers to actors, from musicians to singers, from inventors to manufacturers, as an obvious right. Libraries, for instance, existed for thousands of years, and beyond allowing you to take a book and read it, they all had full teams of scribes who would copy any work a customer wanted, or, if he so wished, would allow him to do the copy himself. Everyone interested in any intellectual production did this, and everyone felt it was the natural way of things.

Quite true. And the big examples are stage writers such as William Shakespeare. They were paid to write a script for a specific production - they often "borrowed" from each other quite a bit, and sometimes even took whole manuscripts, changed a few things, put their name on it, and sold it off as their own work - even if all they did was change locations of scenes and character names, or nothing at all other than the title.

The big premise here is the "work and get paid; don't work - don't get paid". Unfortunately, it is everyone's natural inclination to try to figure out how to "don't work and still get paid", which is why a lot of people really like copyright and patents, and why they'll fight tooth and nail to make terms longer and more in their favor, as opposed to letting it degenerate into what it was before we had copyright.

I still stand by my other post though, as even if we got everyone to agree that copying anything was okay - just like before we had copyright - I think you'd still find the majority saying "but you have to ensure that the author still gets credit " for all copies of their work. This is much easier to do today worldwide than it was 400 years ago; it was also much easier with the printing press than it was before the printing press for smaller regions (e.g. localities, countries, etc.).

And, as I pointed out in my other post - this is essentially what Open Source Licenses basically seek out to do. No matter how they differ in details of distribution, modification, etc - they all require attribution to the original author remains intact.

Re:Scare tactic

[Artifakt]

I hate to keep making this point on RIAA threads but...

I ran an electronics service business out of a white ford van for a while. One night a drunk driver totaled it, and was actually caught. I was legally able to sue him for 3x damages, because he committed DUI and Hit and Run, both criminal acts, and so punitive damages were allowed on the civil side. (I ended up getting almost exactly what it cost me to actually replace everything, but that was more than what I could really prove in court he had destroyed, and replacement costs on all the ruined equipment were higher than the original costs, so 'punitive' damage rules helped get actual justice).

The RIAA is using a law that gives them a 5x damages rule (it multiplies a 30,000$ damage cap to 150,000$ if a test is met - that's 5x). The only have to prove the violation was 'willful' to get that multiple. The standard to prove willfullness is much, much easier than the standard I needed to justify 3x damages.

This is a matter of fundamental equality. Even if I was sure the people running torrents and such are doing severe damage to the RIAA members, even if it is every bit as costly as the RIAA claims, getting special laws passed that make everyone else effectively second tier in court is a damage to the whole legal system. I can't support the RIAA's actions unless they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. I'm not sure how anyone else can.

Way to go RIAA

[suv4x4]

Before RIAA did anything about it, we all doubted what we're doing with music torrents is illegal and may get us in trouble.

Now, RIAA, after many years and millions of USD working on the issue, confirmed it's in fact perfectly safe for us to carry on.

Thank you, RIAA!

Re:Way to go RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not thanking them.

I have friends in bands, with CDs, none of who would be caught dead with an RIAA label contract. The biggest fools are those foolish enough to sign with a major label. See Courtney Love Does The Math, among other articles, none of which paint a very rosy picture of the monsters who run the labels.

These guys, like every other artist, WANT their music to be heard. They will be more than happy to let you serve MP3s from eDonkey or Kazaa. P2P and internet radio are all the indies have.

Meanwhile, the RIAA lies about Piracy, when in fact if you want far better quality copies of each and every top 40 song there is, all you have to do is tune your radio to a top-40 station, plug it into your computer and sample it for a couple of hours, then spend 10 minutes editing. Far easier and less time consuming even than iTunes, with better quality rips! But the RIAA labels control what goes on the radio; they can keep indies off. What they can't control is internet radio, which they have effectively killed, and P2P, which they are trying desperately to kill.

At the risk of repeating myself (better than not getting the point through), this is about crushing the cartel's independant competetion, not about "piracy". Yes, P2P costs them sales - but not because you won't buy that Britney Spears CD after downloading all the songs. It's because after you buy those four indie CDs by that band you found on P2P or internet radio for five bucks apiece, you no longer have the twenty to buy Britney's drek. If you like it, you'll buy it, and only a fool or a damned thief would believe otherwise.

-mcgrew

Unlikely

[Zelocka]

The legal team they have may be moving away and pretty much trying to give up the strategy, but there is no way the record company business management is going to drop it. They have too much of a since of entitlement over making unlimited amounts of money off the same music forever.

It's much more likely you will see the experienced members of the legal team quietly move out to other jobs and new inexperienced members will come in and do the same failed strategy as before.

If it was going to end, we would have seen some level of common since out of the RIAA by now either dropping music prices drastically and providing consistent DRM free music. Drastic price reduction is the only way they are going to cut piracy and that is something they will never do. They are spoiled with years of charging insane amounts of money for something that typically costs them nothing or next to nothing. They are not going to change there thinking until they lose most of the new music being recorded to other venues.

Paradigm Shift

[Puff of Logic]

While the change (or absence) of the RIAA's boilerplate argument is certainly notable, I'd suggest that a far more weighty indication of their losing position is Amazon's new DRM-free music service. The pace of the publishers' relatively tentative movement into DRM-free distribution (i.e. one in which the customer is shown a reasonable amount of trust and respect) seems to stem from a strange combination of lingering distrust and a desire to save face on the part of the record execs. Hopefully we'll see a rather more enthusiastic embracing of DRM-free digital distribution as time goes on.

That said, many thanks to the folks who have been fighting the good fight against the RIAA and their attack dogs. There's no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't been seeing Amazonmp3 or iTunes Plus without their efforts.

cheers.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Precedent

[sexybomber]

So is the 2 October jury trial going to be a one-time thing, or will it set some sort of precedent? I mean, once one case goes to jury trial, do all subsequent cases also have to be heard by a jury?

After all, all these cases are pretty much identical:

RIAA: ZOMG PIRACY! YOU GETTIN' SUED, FOO!
Plaintiff: Don't sue! Here's some money to make you go away.
RIAA: Okay.

(or)

RIAA: ZOMG PIRACY! YOU GETTIN' SUED, FOO!
Plaintiff: What? Fsck that! We're going to court!
Judge: Court is now in session.
RIAA: We're going to drop the case, because our scare tactics have no legal merit.

Re:Precedent

[Aladrin]

IANAL.

No, they don't 'have' to be heard by jury, but the judge will take it into consideration that another case did.

And there's been a couple cases later that don't fit your 2 patterns:

RIAA: ZOMG PIRACY! YOU GETTIN' SUED, FOO!
Plaintiff: What? Fsck that! We're going to court!
Judge: Court is now in session.
Judge: I'm dropping the case, because your scare tactics have no legal merit. You'll also pay the defendent and their lawyer a lot of money.

More Meat

[phoenixwade]

the RIAA still has some wind left in it's sails, but it's certainly winding down.

The Jury trial next week is going to be another of those fun trips through surreal litigation land, I bet. I expect a lot of time spent on who actually owns the copyrights to the songs (which, Although I haven't read any reference to it yet, means the RIAA lawyers will have to identify the the song, AND but the actual copyright holder for the specific recording or performance itself. That should layer a new level of complexity.. Imagine the RIAA identifying some tune that is covered by a few bands:
  first; prove it was an audio file and was copyrighted material.
  Next; Identify the specific performance, because copyright extends to the artist performing, not just the composer/writer.
  Then; you get to establish chain of copyright ownership through the various library transfers and company mergers through the years.
  Finally; convince a jury that all the things you assert along those items are true.

    I point this out, because I see a lot of evidence concerning screen shots, and such, but don't actually see where actuall files are used as evidence, only lists of files and logs. I'm sure, since forensics on Hard drives have occured, that there have been instances of found files that are identified... But that seems pretty rare.

I'm still trying to decide if I am hoping that the chain of ownership is broken or not. If it's broken, there is a precedent for dismissal of a lot of cases, and additional reasons to demand a jury trial that it seems unlikely the RIAA can win (whether the defendant is actually guilty or not). On the other hand, if they can establish copyright ownership, then there is a case for misuse of copyright. My understanding is that "misuse or copyright" voids the copyright. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it doesn't seem like it would take more than one case where copyrights were removed to halt virtually every case out there, since such a judgment would quite literally turn the industry on it's ear overnight.

I believe that the industry is going to (has, though some companys don't seem to understand that yet) change. I supposed, in a twisted way, we should thank the RIAA, ultimately, their actions have changed the landscape faster than it would have otherwise, I think.

They've created a pirate culture

[astrashe]

The Motley Fool points out that most people are honest, and want to pay for their music, so long as they can get what they want.

I think that's mostly true, but that it's far less true than it would have been if the industry had pursued different polices over the past several years.

There's a whole generation out there now that's grown up with piracy, and that's totally comfortable with it. Because this fight has polarized people so much, it's pushed a lot of people into the pro-piracy side who wouldn't have been there otherwise.

Re:They've created a pirate culture

[Mongoose Disciple]

That's a really interesting point. I wonder if we'll be talking about this era of record company business in fifty years the same way people say that the alcohol prohibition era in the U.S. gave organized crime its first big growth.

Re:They've created a pirate culture

[david_thornley]

Yup. Why would somebody pay for music when they can get it for free?

• They could be paying for a better copy, but in fact the pirate copies are better. (No DRM, for starters.)
• They could be paying because it's the right thing to do, but the prosecutions are firmly establishing the labels as the bad guys, and it's really hard to sell morality when you're running a campaign of indiscriminate terror.
• They could be paying because they're scared of the RIAA, but the RIAA's tactics are increasingly seen as ineffective.
• They could be paying to support the artists, but I suspect increasing numbers of people are aware of how much money the artists actually see from the CDs.
• They aren't going to be swayed by annoying ham-handed messages that try to make law-abiding customers feel like criminals, not in a culture where Reefer Madness became something of a cult hit.

The RIAA seems to be meticulously removing any reason anybody would have for buying their stuff. It's worse than watching the business practices of Major League Baseball. It's fascinating, much like a ship having a disagreement with an iceberg.

(Yes, all my music has been acquired legally. Why do you ask?)

Re:They've created a pirate culture

[Frosty Piss]

There's a whole generation out there now that's grown up with piracy, and that's totally comfortable with it. Because this fight has polarized people so much, it's pushed a lot of people into the pro-piracy side who wouldn't have been there otherwise.

Actually, the Record Industry had the same opinion of cassette tapes, it's just that they couldn't track the copying as you can with Interweb p2p. But "back in the day" there where "public service" campaigns against cassettes, and they tried many times to get laws and taxes passed on cassettes as well.

Wait. I'm sorry, most of you don't know what cassettes tapes are... Here's a linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette

Re:They've created a pirate culture

[Opportunist]

Your first point is also your strongest: The copy offers higher value than the original. That's actually the cardinal sin they make.

Usually, when you buy an original product instead of the fake, you have some benefits. You have bought higher quality. Well, at least it's likely that you did. You get support, you get the option for replacements if it breaks, the manufacturer might even throw a few more service goodies at you, you get access to further options for free or little money, in general, there's an additional value in it for you, the valued customer of the original part instead of some knockoff.

With content it's exactly reversed. You do not get "more" for buying the original, you get less. You get limitations due to DRM, you get mandatory previews and FBI warnings on movies, you have to keep the CD in the drive with games and with some software it gets really bizarre with dongles (which invariably will break something else), or copy protection drivers that cripple your machine in a way or another.

The actual problem with any kind of copy protection is that it devaluates the product, compared to the illegal copy. The value of the copy is higher. I know people who do buy the game, then get the rip to play it.

I wonder how long they will keep up buying it. That step does not give them anything tangible, actually...

Re:internet time

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's a tricky question.

Internet time fluctuates with the clogging of the tubes, which we all know the internet is made of, and how many libraries of congress worth of emo-ranting the so-called "blogosphere" is putting out per forthnight.
So basically you divide your local time by zero and OH SHI-

Re:internet time

[jandrese]

Even the Millennium Falcon couldn't catch up with that joke as it flew over your head.

And we should care why?

[PhysicsPhil]

I am a big fan of the Motley Fool website, but these guys are an "investment website", which really means they're simultaneous trying to attract readers to entertain them and hopefully sell their various investment newsletters. Generally I think they have a fair bit of credibility, focusing on things like investing over a decade-long time horizon, not piling into the "next big thing" and watching things like mutual fund expenses.

That being said, I'm not sure why we particularly care about this particular article, other than the fact that it parrots the party line here at Slashdot. These guys aren't lawyers, and don't spend a lot of time examining the recording industry. In fact, over the 7 years that I've been reading their articles, this is the *only* one I can recall that discusses the music industry at all. It strikes me very much as an op-ed piece rather than a serious legal or business study of an industry, and I don't give it any more credibility than some guy ranting on his blog.

To be sure, the RIAA has suffered legal defeats and setbacks, but just because a financial news and opinion site happens to pick up on it does not mean that the industry is going to collapse, nor does it mean that those who are being/will be sued should stop worrying.

Re:And we should care why?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I am a big fan of the Motley Fool website, but these guys are an "investment website", which really means they're simultaneous trying to attract readers to entertain them and hopefully sell their various investment newsletters. Generally I think they have a fair bit of credibility, focusing on things like investing over a decade-long time horizon, not piling into the "next big thing" and watching things like mutual fund expenses. That being said, I'm not sure why we particularly care about this particular article, other than the fact that it parrots the party line here at Slashdot. These guys aren't lawyers, and don't spend a lot of time examining the recording industry. In fact, over the 7 years that I've been reading their articles, this is the *only* one I can recall that discusses the music industry at all. It strikes me very much as an op-ed piece rather than a serious legal or business study of an industry, and I don't give it any more credibility than some guy ranting on his blog. To be sure, the RIAA has suffered legal defeats and setbacks, but just because a financial news and opinion site happens to pick up on it does not mean that the industry is going to collapse, nor does it mean that those who are being/will be sued should stop worrying.

Here's why I care.

The fact that an investment web site like Motley Fool and a business program like "MarketPlace" (which just did a 3-part series last week on the record industry's grand mistake) take hold of the issue isn't necessarily of interest from a legal point of view or a scientific point of view, but it is of great interest to shareholders and would be shareholders.

The impetus for dropping this campaign won't come from
-the lawyers who have been the principal beneficiaries of this juggernaut,
-techies,
-the entrenched management who would never admit to their shareholders that they've been on a fool's errand for the past 4 1/2 years,
-the RIAA which has been destroying the record companies, or
-anyone else.

It will come from shareholders when they come to realize they are being taken for a ride by a handful of morons who were too dumb to (a) realize the business opportunity the internet represented for them until it was too late, and/or (b) create a new business model that could harness the internet's energy.

The investment community is coming to realize that the big 4 record companies stocks -- all referred to in the Motley Fools articles -- won't be worth a damn until the record companies leave the past, enter the present, and work to survive into the future.

That's why the article means something.

PS As a lawyer, I think the Motley Fool author's understanding of the legal issues was pretty good, certainly a lot better than that of the RIAA lawyers I've met.

Re:I Wonder

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm forced to wonder, is the RIAA coming out ahead at the end of all of this? Did enough people settle that, despite all the garbage, they're still in the black? And, if they aren't (as I suspect is the case), why would the client-companies of the RIAA keep the RIAA legal staff employed? I know, were I in charge of a mega-media corporation and a team of lawyers screwed the pooch as badly as the RIAA legal team appears to have done so, I'd be handing them all their walking papers... I'm pretty sure they're losing a couple of million a year on the litigation campaign. They make money on settlements, lose money on default judgments, and lose a lot of money on any case where the defendant fights back. And as public awareness grows, more and more people are fighting back.

As to the "walking papers", I imagine the shareholders are on the verge of doing that pretty soon.

Maybe I'll buy some more CDs now

[Wesley Everest]

A funny thing. When napster first came out, I downloaded a bunch of songs, which got me excited about music in general and several bands in particular. In the year before napster got shut down, I probably bought a dozen CDs. Then for quite a while I lost interest in music, or just played the music I had. Then I got broadband and an iPod and discovered eMule, and ended up buying another dozen or so CDs after a few years of not setting foot in a record store. The the RIAA started cracking down, and well, I just sort of lost interest in music again.

What a bunch of morons.

Re:internet time

[B3ryllium]

And that doesn't even take into account the 'official' explanation of the Kessel Run cutting through a black hole field, thus necessitating a powerfully fast ship to cut as many gravitational "corners" as possible ...