RIAA Wants $1.5 Million Per CD Copied

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Not content with current statutory damages, the RIAA is pushing for higher damages for infringement, damages that would total $1.5 million for copying a CD with ten songs. It's all part of debate over the proposed PRO-IP Act. William Patry, a lawyer who wrote the seminal seven-volume reference on US copyright law, called it the most 'outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the US.'"

Comments

$1.5 million?

[KublaiKhan]

I knew that 'going gold' meant a lot to an artist, and I knew the price of gold was high, but $1.5 million sounds just a little high...

Or is this just for the ones that go platinum?

Re:$1.5 million?

[MozeeToby]

This is a classic case of asking for more than you can get to give yourself bargaining power. They'll ask for 1.5 million then say "oh well, we'll just compromise at 750k and call it good"

Re:$1.5 million?

[KublaiKhan]

Oh, -only- that much. Right. Perfectly reasonable.

Re:$1.5 million?

[PopeRatzo]

I just copied Icky Thump by the White Stripes and Parsifal by Richard Wagner, conducted by James Levine. The Wagner is 4 CDs, so does that mean I owe them a total $7.5mil?

Let me get my checkbook.

Strange, because the last time I was in a record store (a few years ago, honestly) the price tag was only about 14 bucks.

What a bunch of wankers the RIAA is. Talk about having an inflated sense of worth.

Re:$1.5 million?

[teasea]

Gold is 500,000 copies and platinum is 1,000,000. So if you go Gold, that's a net of $7,500,000.00. Now the company spent $100,000 to $250,000 recording, $3,000,000 in marketing (mostly payola) and another half million or so on incidentals (hookers, bail). Oh, and stamps. Add a half million.

The artist on the first album will 1 to 3% of the net, so with the remaining 3 and half million or so, that means the artist only owes the company an additional $150,000.00. Luckily there are 4 or 5 members in the band, so it's relativly painless. You should be able to make most of that back on your next album assuming you can come up with quality material in 9 months when the first album took 12 years of writing. (It's easier to just use the same songs with different lyrics.)

Have a cigar!

Re:$1.5 million?

[Thought1]

Haven't you been paying attention? Gold's at an all-time high, and they gotta pay for their (over-)weight in it somehow. (:

Re:$1.5 million?

[thatskinnyguy]

You should be able to make most of that back on your next album assuming you can come up with quality material in 9 months when the first album took 12 years of writing. Bon Jovi said it best,"You have your whole life to write your first album and only six months to write the second."

Re:$1.5 million?

[KeyboardMonkey]

To put this in perspective, the entire US GDP in 2006 was $13.13 trillion. That's 8.7 million copied CDs.

I wonder what that is in Libraries of Congress.

Re:$1.5 million?

[rapturizer]

I think we should let them, only with the stipulation of a $1.5 Billion penalty when they file a lawsuit against the wrong person. Of course, this would be payable in cash to the person they sue. I would think that this would be an equally justifiable fine and would encourage some top tier lawyers to defend the public for a marginal percentage.

Re:$1.5 million?

[aztektum]

Meanwhile each CD only sells for 10-15 bucks. Somehow they feel copying that CD and losing them that sale is worth fines that are many orders of magnitude what they actually "lost" (using their definition of lost).

Re:$1.5 million?

[Fishead]

Buddy of mine was working on a yacht with a schnazzy sound system. Once they realized what they had access to, all the technicians bought portable harddrives and made themselves a copy.

Good thing I didn't copy the 50Gigs of mp3's from CD, or I could be on the hook for a lot of money!

Re:$1.5 million?

[hondo77]

You realize that you just quoted Jon Bon Jovi...in public?

Re:$1.5 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

Might want to check the numbers. Last I heard most major artists were costing 1 to 5 million in the studio, that's ignoring the Michael Jackson 25 mill per album in studio expenses. That's an average and some are more. Low end artist may be in the 100K to 500K in studio time. I'm talking major labels not Jim Bob buying a few hours of studio time or doing it in his garage. The actual studio cost is a tiny part of the expense the majority going to expenses and demands of the artists. Some expenses are legit like studio musicians and engineer time in post processing and mixing but the bulk tends to be conditions artists demand and their small army of people that are around them. Also for a major album 3 mill would be on the low end for advertising. They don't spend film money but they spend north of what they spend on producing the albums, once again ignoring Michael Jackson, in his case he just shows up in public sporting a new nose or weird outfit. The real expense though are the five or ten albums that tanked to get the hit one. Now that sales for even established artists are dropping like rocks they are going to be far less likely to go with new talent. Kind of the irony of the situation. Companies like to play it safe when things get tight. Better to spend 5 or 10 mill cranking out another Brittany album than give ten unknown artists a shot at it. With a lot of the singers these days it's in the post production anyway. Ole Paris Hilton helped let the cat out of the bag on that one. She can't sing a note but her album was passable once they got finished filtering it. It's why so many young artists don't sing live, you'd never recognize their real voice. The excuse is the dance numbers and difficulty getting clean sound. The real reason is a good share are there for looks and can't really sing.

Re:$1.5 million?

[mrdarreng]

Have a cigar! nice reference! ;c)

Re:$1.5 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is to funny they think copy of a cd is worth more then they will most likely ever pay the artist who made it.

Re:$1.5 million?

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Platinum? What about Lutetium? Californium-252 or any man-made element will be expensive due to huge effort in processing that doesn't exist in nature.
Nevertheless RIAA has gone off the deep end with this. $1.5 million for 10 songs is well beyond any sane persons thinking. I don't think you can share a single song that many times in anyones lifetime.

Re:$1.5 million?

[Dirtside]

He didn't say Jon Bon Jovi, he just said "Bon Jovi". He was referring to the well-known Italian architect, Dr. Giuseppi Bon Jovi of the Milan Institute of Design.

I mean, duh. Of course, I have no idea why an architect is bloviating about music, but who can understand Italians?[1]

[1] No one, not even other Italians.

Re:$1.5 million?

[McFadden]

What a bunch of wankers the RIAA is. Talk about having an inflated sense of worth.

And therein lies the rub. It's SELF-worth. Self, meaning the people who run the record companies. This is money to line the pockets of the suits who've never even stepped inside a recording studio. You can bet that if this became law and the RIAA did manage to successfully win a case, it would be the execs that would trouser the money. The artists whose CDs were copied wouldn't get a cent.

Re:$1.5 million?

[reddburn]

So if you go Gold, that's a net of $7,500,000.00. Now the company spent $100,000 to $250,000 recording, $3,000,000 in marketing (mostly payola) and another half million or so on incidentals (hookers, bail). Oh, and stamps. Add a half million. You're mixing up net and gross - gross is the total taken in, net is that total minus expenses. Most artists get diddly-squat because studios always find a way to take the net total down to nothing (gotta love "administrative costs").

Re:$1.5 million?

[gc8005]

Stamps? I'll buy the goddam stamps. Now let's go to the Magic Kingdom.

Re:$1.5 million?

[tuomoks]

Right! One talented musician I know got a lot of offers from music companies. Fortunately he was clever enough to take the offers to an lawyer. The advice was, by the way the math in parent is right, if you sell xx millions you still own the company. Now, if you sell xx millions more, you can make some money. Because he is he, not she who can be sold by looks, he refused. Plays wonderful music today which, unfortunately because of the system, very few can get. IMHO the system is weird but on the other hand, it is really a perfect picture of system where you do the work and someone else get the benefits. I leave to readers imagination what that system is?

Re:$1.5 million?

[MacWiz]

I heard somewhere that you can't always get what you want.

Re:$1.5 million?

[tuomoks]

Yes, they should! But, unfortunately, no such paragraph in law books. Some countries do have that but it is against a capitalist system so you will not see it here. It has good and bad points, sometimes(?) the courts might just be biased and where you are then? But there should be some balances, I even think you should be able to sue politicians of their (paid?) decisions which are proved wrong later on - isn't that what democracy is? Or maybe a republic is not really a democracy?

Re:$1.5 million?

[Korin43]

No you're getting it all wrong, see the RIAA says a single CD is worth 1.5 mil dollars, so if your CD goes platinum with 1,000,000 copies sold, they should get about $1.5 trillion in sales.

Re:$1.5 million?

[arminw]

.....it would be the execs that would trouser the money.......

Are you not forgetting the lawyers? Don't they get the lions share in most lawsuits?

Re:$1.5 million?

[djupedal]

The Library of Congress contains about 20 terabytes of text.

If a CD contains, say 700mb; 8.7 million copied CDs = approx. 300 LOC's

Re:$1.5 million?

[Z00L00K]

I would call such a call to be reason to dismiss the claim completely and also make sure that no other claims could be done ever, but for a judge to make such a statement would be too much to hope for.

It's nothing else than outrageous. But of course if the currency isn't explicitly specified it could be paid in old Turkish Lira.

Re:$1.5 million?

[aproposofwhat]

Yeah - but

...if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

In this case, what the RIAA need is beyond my powers of description, but involves red hot pokers and a large gentleman of peculiar tastes.

Re:$1.5 million?

[vhogemann]

And, meanwhile elsewhere in the world you'll still have the right to backup the content you purchased.

I'm really amazed by this RIAA and MPAA stories... maybe because here at Brazil we have institutions to look after the consumer interests. Of course selling pirated DVDs or MP3 CDs on the streets is illegal around here, but somehow we managed the same rights we had with vinyl records and tapes.

There's other thing that happens here too, some regional artists actually like having their records copied and shared, and yes, even pirated. These are small bands that would never gain the big Record Industry attention, and sharing is the best way to make their music known... They make money doing shows, so as much people know their songs the better, because it will give them the chance to make shows at more cities.

I'm almost sure that something like this is happening at the USA too... Small bands, that make their records with independent labels, and make more money with shows than with album sales. And also, I'm sure that their music is much more worth listening too than the artists that record with the big evil labels.

And I won't even start to talk about all the great free music you can grab on the net, and share as much as you want.

Re:$1.5 million?

[nickruiz]

So all I have to do is record a crappy album while I'm on my one hour lunch break (preferably in the bathroom for the acoustics), make some outrageous claim to the RIAA that I'm making a worthless CD that will act as jail bait, and release it on a public website with ambiguous wording, making it sound almost as if it's free to distribute over the Internet, and then quit my day job?

Sounds too easy. Whoops, I forgot the part where I'd probably only make $20 out of that $1.5 million per CD. Can I take my resignation letter back?

Re:$1.5 million?

[Kjella]

And if you made that into 128kbps mp3/aac for about 75MB/CD, that's 650TB. 650 people with a TB drive equals the US GDP? Right...

Re:$1.5 million?

[sm62704]

who can understand Italians?[1]
[1] No one, not even other Italians.

My sister's husband is Italian, you insensitive clod.

Nobody unbderstands him though.

Re:$1.5 million?

[Desco]

You realize if you stole-- PHYSICALLY THIEVED-- and in doing so denied someone else their ownership by removing the album from their car... it would be petit misdemeanor theft ($100), which has a maximum sentence of about $1000 and/or 90 days in jail. Doing a quick scan of the web, most petit thefts gets $300-$500 fine and a year of probation. But no, you're right, copying a CD which doesn't deny the original purchaser's ownership should be in the millions.

Re:$1.5 million?

[kehren77]

Strange, because the last time I was in a record store (a few years ago, honestly) the price tag was only about 14 bucks.

Let's see the math on this.....

They say a CD is worth $1,500,000 and you can get it for $14. (First of all you are apparently getting one hell of a deal at the store)

So they are assuming that you are going to make/distribute 107,142.86 copies of that CD? Is that really the math they are trying to use to justify this? Or are they assuming you will make/distribute 100,000 copies at an average price of $15 per CD?

Either way is ridiculous. Maybe their CD sales wouldn't be falling if they would sign some decent music talent. Stop making CDs of crappy American Idol winners and actually have some standards for the music.

Oh and how about some realistic pricing. I could see paying over $10 for a CD back in the day when CDs actually cost more than 5 cents. But these days I can get CDs for pennies. And digital downloads don't even have that expense. You should be paying based on the amount of data you are downloading, not a "per song" fee.

Re:$1.5 million?

[Vr6dub]

Yeah, but how many Cadillacs per dog year is that?

Re:$1.5 million?

[Some_Llama]

"Yeah, but how many Cadillacs per dog year is that?"

I prefer rods to the hoghead ty.

Re:$1.5 million?

[ProfLuddite]

1) The bill passes
2) Businesses are forced to ban CD's in the workplace to mitigate their risk.
3) CD Sales drop again by half
4) Record companies die screaming

Where's the down side?

Re:$1.5 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realize you make it sound like you were stealing this imaginary property -- right? Could be one of the few cases of copyright theft yet.

Re:$1.5 million?

[PopeRatzo]

They say a CD is worth $1,500,000 and you can get it for $14. (First of all you are apparently getting one hell of a deal at the store)

Sorry, but it's been a while since I bought a CD in a store.

Not that I never buy CDs, though. I've purchased quite a few CDs last year (or at least CD's worth of music) directly from the artists. I really like dealing directly with artists when buying their work. Not only is all the money going directly to the people who did the hard work, but it creates a personal relationship with the artist. You'd be surprised how many of my favorite musicians have corresponded with me personally just because I bought their music directly from their website. In at least two cases, they've sent me free previews of their next releases, and one even put me on the guest list at an upcoming show in my area (naturally, I declined and paid my way). Hard-working musicians really appreciate it when their fans think enough of their work to lay down a few bucks which goes right into their pockets, without doing a detour through several colonies of leeches and skimmers, none of whom have done a goddamn thing to help, and in many cases have made life harder for them.

I love music and musicians. I make a significant portion of my own livelihood by making and selling my music. The RIAA, MPAA, intellectual property lawyers, record company execs, A&R people, radio program directors, Clear Channel, major concert promoters, etc etc do nothing but hurt the quality and quantity of music. More and more creative people are realizing there's a better way. God bless 'em.

Re:$1.5 million?

[mattsucks]

Not to be picky .. okay exactly to be picky .. and somewhat off-topic as well .. 500,000 and 1,000,000 only apply to English-language recordings certified by the RIAA. Recordings with over 50% of Spanish-language content use lower thresholds in the U.S.

Also, the IFPI (the international version of the RIAA) has a set of numbers it applies to sales in every country, based (I assume) on the size of the overall market. They very by country .. the US #s are by far the largest.

references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_recording_sales_certification

(heh .. the captcha is "damned")

Re:$1.5 million?

[shellbeach]

I just copied Icky Thump by the White Stripes and Parsifal by Richard Wagner, conducted by James Levine. The Wagner is 4 CDs, so does that mean I owe them a total $7.5mil? Normally, yes. But I'd imagine that listening to four CDs of Wagner would be considered punishment enough ...

Re:$1.5 million?

[vux984]

I think we should let them, only with the stipulation of a $1.5 Billion penalty when they file a lawsuit against the wrong person. Of course, this would be payable in cash to the person they sue.

Nah, they'd sue the plaintiff for not telling them who they should have sued. Do keep up. ;)

I would think that this would be an equally justifiable fine and would encourage some top tier lawyers to defend the public for a marginal percentage.

Like 95%. Plus expenses.

Re:$1.5 million?

[teasea]

Yep. I meant gross.

oops.

Re:$1.5 million?

[teasea]

Admittedly, my references are a bit old. But we're not discussing major artists. I mentioned first albums. 5 mil for recording time is ludicrous. I'm guessing the lion's share went to umm... incidentals. My album cost 6 grand in the studio. Lacks some things, and if I cared anymore I'd like to take the masters and spend another 10 grand cleaning 'em up. Regardless of justifications and financial realities, those guys making their first album don't feel rich even though they just sold a respectable half million copies.

I agree with you and don't think it matters anymore though. Musicians that want to make a living now better have the chops to play live. Hopefully without the device that nudges those bad notes into key.

'sides. My entire diatribe was just an excuse to reference Floyd :)

Re:$1.5 million?

[teasea]

Oops, my Ugly American is showing.

Didn't know this.

Thanks!

Re:$1.5 million?

[mgcarley]

Are you sure Paris actually sang on the album, and didn't just slip some girl $500 who actually *can* sing to do just that? I have my doubts. But this is not really the point. I'm curious to know who actually would *buy* this crap in the first place.

New Zealanders might remember the case of the Paul Holmes CD a few years back (it became the single most returned item after Christmas that year).

Henry Rollins has the right idea: he says that if the labels started putting out music that wasn't so shitty, people might want to buy it. Forcing people to pay $23 of their hard earned cash for a J-Lo (or in this case Paris Hilton) CD is the real crime.

Re:$1.5 million?

[mgcarley]

50 Gigs? Pffrt. Multiply by *at least* 4.

This includes quite a lot of public-domain (Classical/Old Jazz and such on which the copyrights should have expired) music.

I consider most Classical Music to be public domain, since by the time it's in (MP3/OGG/FLAC) format it *can* be difficult to distinguish *which* orchestra played it... of course, with the exception of particular artists like Maksim Mrvica, Vanessa Mae, Nigel Kennedy and others who put a spin on it to create a particular style.

In addition, this collection also includes a LOT of foreign-language music too *and* very few duplicates.

But still. 50 Gigs. Thats like... less than a week of torrents.

Re:$1.5 million?

[mgcarley]

I concur with this idea. Why don't we scrap the labels and pay the artists directly for their music?

First off, it will mean the demise of "artists" like Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton (among a myriad of others), but it will also mean the rise of artists that can actually play their instruments and maybe even sing. With the Social-Networking sites being so popular now, and with this interweb thing being pretty much everywhere, who needs a label for distribution?

Maybe the idea *is* a little extreme, but it seems that its beginning to happen.

Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[Steeltalon]

I ask because I want them to be safe. It has to be painful pulling garbage like this out of their asses.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[spun]

It has to be painful pulling garbage like this out of their asses. Not when you're THAT big of an asshole. The RIAA could pull a dump truck out of their asses and not feel a thing.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[VultureMN]

You are, indeed, correct.

I think this is the first, and probably last, time on /. where a link to the goatse guy would be ONtopic.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[Steeltalon]

Good point. I suppose that with these facts in mind, they have to be mindful not to eat any chips with Olestra or take that "Alli" diet drug... more of these great ideas might come out as "leakage" and at the most embarrassing times.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[Malevolent Tester]

The digestive system isn't a dump truck - it's a series of tubes.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the RIAA's rectum a series of tubes?

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[blind monkey 3]

It looks like they are attempting to reverse a tow-truck up our asses to look for the dump truck.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll need several licensed proctologists now - they can shove their CD "product" up their collective asses.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[mindwanderer]

It's not garbage; it's Intestinal Property.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Stephens wants to be clear that under no circumstances are you to confuse the RIAA's ass with a series of tubes.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[Phroggy]

The digestive system isn't a dump truck - it's a series of tubes. Wow, that has to be one of the best metaphors for the Internet I've seen!

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[RealGrouchy]

No, that's the *human* digestive system. This is the RIAA we're talking about!

- RG>

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[gripen40k]

Not when you're THAT big of an asshole. The RIAA could pull a dump truck out of their asses and not feel a thing.
Yeah, so could the people they have screwed over the last couple of years (artists AND defendants alike).

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[denelson83]

It has to be painful pulling garbage like this out of their asses. Not when you're THAT big of an asshole. The RIAA could pull a dump truck out of their asses and not feel a thing. Actually, it's so big the RIAA could easily shove all their heads up it... Oh wait, they already are up there.

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[jimicus]

Not true, actually.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=331637&cid=21021947 (Topic: "Monster Black Hole Busts Theory")

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=228367&cid=18507905 (Topic: "Cassini probes the Hexagon on Saturn")

(Do I get an "Informative" mod for carrying on this discussion?)

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[MastarPete]

interestingly enough a similar opportunity opened up in the comments for
"CSS of DVDs Ruled 'Ineffective' by Finnish Courts" http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/25/1653209

"That might have been true in the past. In the age of the Internet, cracks can almost instantly become widespread."
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=236211&cid=19273729

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[RESPAWN]

Second time. A few months back there was an article/poll about popular Slashdot memes over the years. Somebody posed a link to Goatse then. I think I might have even modded him up, but that was surely the first time a Goatse post was on topic. Sorry to burst your bubble. :)

Re:Does the RIAA have a licensed proctologist?

[mgcarley]

I think that the lawyers work it out like this:

New Porsche is going to cost me $150,000. My fee for winning is 10% of the outcome... so damages should be $1,500,000! ...and movies are only $250,000 (unless those figures have changed, of course).

heh

[Captain Splendid]

RIAA Wants $1.5 Million Per CD Copied

And I want a pony. Somehow, I think we're both going to be disappointed.

Re:heh

[mcmonkey]

RIAA Wants $1.5 Million Per CD Copied

And I want a pony. Somehow, I think we're both going to be disappointed.

Somehow, I think the RIAA have better lobbyists than you have.

And I think the point is not to actually get $1.5mil per CD, but to have that statute on the books as leverage to get more settlements.

Re:heh

[Hatta]

Give as much money to politicians as the RIAA has and you'll both get your wish.

Re:heh

[KublaiKhan]

Cheaper just to buy the pony.

Re:heh

[TubeSteak]

Somehow, I think the RIAA have better lobbyists than you have.

And I think the point is not to actually get $1.5mil per CD, but to have that statute on the books as leverage to get more settlements. Whenever you see legislation like the PRO-IP Act, you have to ask yourself two questions:
1. Who is sponsoring the legislation?
Sponsor:
John Conyers [D-MI]

Co-sponsors:
Rep Berman, Howard L. [D-CA]
Rep Cohen, Steve [D-TN]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX]
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
Rep Wexler, Robert [D-FL]

Rep Chabot, Steve [R-OH]
Rep Feeney, Tom [R-FL]
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA]
Rep Keller, Ric [R-FL]
Rep Smith, Lamar [R-TX]

2. Where did the model legislation for this Act come from?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

And I want a pony. Somehow, I think we're both going to be disappointed. Come back here in about three months.

Re:heh

[eiapoce]

Excellent piece. BTW: Republicans = Democrats = Sold out. And I mean it, here is proof: http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/ - http://opensecrets.org/

I'd suggest american friends to change from a Duocracy system to a real democracy. As much is proven that a duopoly is not effective in favouring the consumer, why whould a duocracy do any better in the political field?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever you see legislation like the PRO-IP Act, you have to ask yourself two questions:
1. Who is sponsoring the legislation?
Sponsor:
John Conyers [D-MI]

Co-sponsors:
Rep Berman, Howard L. [D-Hollywood]
Rep Cohen, Steve [D-Nashville]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX]
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [D-Hollywood]
Rep Wexler, Robert [D-Disney]

Rep Chabot, Steve [R-OH]
Rep Feeney, Tom [R-Disney]
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [R-Hollywood]
Rep Keller, Ric [R-Disney]
Rep Smith, Lamar [R-TX]

Fixed some typos for you.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG Ponies!!!

Re:heh

[bendodge]

Would that be like Ron Paul getting elected even if he didn't win the caucus?

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would he want to win a cactus? Oh, wait...

Re:heh

[superdave80]

Give the right members of congress enough money and watch the 'Ponies For All Patriotic Non-Terrorists Protect The Children' Act get passed in eight seconds flat.

Re:heh

[easyTree]

Lol. It makes me laugh how corrupt the politicians in the USofA are. They could sure teach ours a thing or two.

Re:heh

[snoyberg]

Or maybe yours could teach ours how to hide it better ;)

Re:heh

[maz2331]

if ((Republican == Democrat) && (Congress == corrupt)) {
    vote(r3VOLution)
}
else
{
    Country = SCREWED;
}

Re:heh

[aynoknman]

Relativity: A grook with no reference whatever to the two-party system To wear a shirt that's relatively clean, You needn't ever launder off the dirt If you possess two shirts to choose between and always change into the cleaner shirt. -- Piet Hein

Re:heh

[TubeSteak]

Excellent piece. BTW: Republicans = Democrats = Sold out. I disagree with the notion that Republicans = Democrats = Sold out
There are real and serious differences between the two parties and anyone who tries to marginalize those differences is usually agitating for a 3rd party or giving in to apathy.

The +5 Funny AC below me made an insightful commentary that I had thought about saying, but decided to avoid editorializing.

Basically, the people sponsoring this bill are:
Disneyland x 3
Hollywood x 3
Texas x 2
and Nashville Tennesse, the home of country music

People always seem surprised when they realize that their Representatives consider Big Business to be part of the constituency.

I'd suggest american friends to change from a Duocracy system to a real democracy. The founders of these U.S.A. were against a Duocracy (nice word, only 434 results on Google), but they were also afraid of a direct Democracy.

Re:heh

[MsGeek]

Rep Berman, Howard L. [D-CA]

That's my congresscritter. He's in a safely Dem district, and he never gets a primary challenge. Considering all the money Big Media gives him, I'm hoping he'll retire soon.

Re:Heh

[RobBebop]

If you want to *hurt* them, start working with artists to build an alternative music production and distribution system which works for them.

Hurt them, indeed!

Re:heh

[pclminion]

I disagree with the notion that Republicans = Democrats = Sold out There are real and serious differences between the two parties and anyone who tries to marginalize those differences is usually agitating for a 3rd party or giving in to apathy.

Indeed. Back when I was getting my feet wet in the field of data mining, I decided to download the voting records of the US Senate, at least for the last 20 or so years. This data is publicly available on the government web site. A few Perl scripts later and I had reduced the entire voting record to a single CSV file. Each "issue" (an item being voted on) was represented by a single row. Each column represented a specific Senator, and the values were either "For," "Against," or "No Vote."

I also created a perpendicular data set, where each row represented a Senator and each column represented a specific issue, with the values again being "For," "Against," and "No Vote."

I loaded these data sets into a general data mining tool and ran some trials. Among other experiments, I ran J48 to produce decision trees to predict vote values for each Senator, based on how the Senator voted on some specific "model issues," such as gun control legislation. In other words, based on how a Senator voted on certain issues I could predict how they voted on some target issue. If somebody voted against a pro-life abortion bill, how would they vote on a matter of pollution control? Etc. I also ran the perpendicular analysis: based on how other Senators voted on issue X, how would any given Senator vote on the same issue? These decision trees achieved predictive accuracies of greater than 80% in standard cross-validation testing.

The decision trees are also very informative in that they describe the political influences between Senators. If the topmost branch of the decision tree for Senator X is Senator Y, then we can assume there is some kind of friendship, similarity, or power relationship between those two Senators, at least to some degree. These decision trees are powerful tools for political analysis.

But more to the point, one of the best tests I conducted was the application of EM-clustering to the Senators themselves, with the goal being to divide them into "camps," where each camp had similar voting preferences. I allowed the EM-algorithm to decide, on its own, how many clusters to produce, using an MDL principle. I was only somewhat surprised when the algorithm created three clusters. All the Republicans ended up in cluster 1, along with two Democrats. The rest of the Democrats, as well as all the independents, ended up in cluster 2. The third cluster contained Senators who had run for President. (My theory on why the algorithm created a "Presidential cluster" is because Presidential candidates often spend a long time away from the Senate, during their campaigns, and therefore have long stretches of "No vote" on their records. This makes them appear somewhat similar to each other from a statistical viewpoint.)

When "dumb," statistically based data mining software is capable of grasping the clear differences between Republican and Democrat, it becomes impossible to argue with a straight face that the two parties are the same. A fucking computer can tell the difference, why can't a human?

(By the way, one of the Democratic Senators the computer placed into the Republican party was Hillary Clinton.)

Re:heh

[The Analog Kid]

Rep Wexler, Robert [D-FL]

He's high on crack though. (it's a fun thing to do)

Re:heh

[Jafafa Hots]

"There are real and serious differences between the two parties and anyone who tries to marginalize those differences is usually agitating for a 3rd party or giving in to apathy." The differences: GOP "We want to government to torture people." Dems "We're going to write a strongly worded letter explaining our misgivings about our allowing government torture." GOP "The government needs to spy on its own people, this is a good thing." Dems "Gosh, its too bad that the government has to spy on its own people." GOP "The president can't break the law because anything he does is by definition legal." Dems "The president can't break the law because he's not supposed to. We think he is, but he swears he's not. We sure wish he'd stop, but he says he won't."

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Who leaves a message packed with ponies to come to a non-pony site?

Re:heh

[wizardforce]

(By the way, one of the Democratic Senators the computer placed into the Republican party was Hillary Clinton.)

just out of curiosity, who was the other one?

Re:heh

[bluebearr]

http://i-want-a-pony.com/

(I break my lurker status for this? oh well...)

Re:heh

[Kingrames]

No, the Senators are really cheap.

Re:heh

[Yoozer]

When "dumb," statistically based data mining software is capable of grasping the clear differences between Republican and Democrat, it becomes impossible to argue with a straight face that the two parties are the same. A fucking computer can tell the difference, why can't a human?

Because the computer has everything loaded up into memory (people forget past mistakes and triumphs if it suits them) and because the computer is not prejudiced. If someone hears of 5 corruption scandals at the Republicans and 2 at the Democrats, people still have a tendency to call it "both are equially corrupt" - because it saves them the hard work of thinking.

The Hillary outcome is interesting, though - so instead of a RINO (Republican in name only), she's a RONIN (Republican, only not in name) ;).

Re:heh

[belmolis]

Rep Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]

Are you sure that shouldn't be:

Rep Goodlatte, Bob [R-Starbucks]

Re:heh

[CSMatt]

One of those co-sponsors is the representative in my district. I plan to vote against him but he has the overwhelming support of the voters (although I don't think the majority of supporters know or care about his stance in copyright).

Sigh.

Re:heh

[easyTree]

Or both; Mmmn, that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Boundary-agnostic political animals, coming together to share information, for the good of mankind :D

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

>Back when I was getting my feet wet in the field of data mining...

Hey, can I borrow your wellies?

Or, in other words I'm about to start a job where some knowledge about data-mining would be useful.
Can you recommend any papers/books/web resources?

Cheers

Re:heh

[aproposofwhat]

She can't be a Ronin - the definition of a Ronin is that they are masterless.

Ms Clintstone is most definitely owned by lobbyists.

Re:heh

[eiapoce]

Listen my friend.

To start with when I was 20 I proudly applied statistical data analisys to the breast size of the playboy's bunnies in order to find out whereever they had implants or not. I think statistics belongs there. Otherwise following your reasoning of statistics in politics we could have robots voting istead of people.

That said and getting a serious conversation going on, it is not the specific case of pro-abotion pro-life issues that matters here. And that's because clearly the health service industry is making money wherever there is a abortion or a newborn, that's why you could spot a residual difference beween the two. There are also a basic numbers of sensitive areas that the parties expose to the public in order to convince them to give them a relative majority such as Ground control, mediaid, public instruction etc. And in those areas it is clear that they are buond to express a vote as promised.

On the other hand the problem emerges dramatically when corporate lobbying interests are put at a stake. You have a system that clearly and openly welcomes sponsors to pay your candidates (on both sides). I don't believe that they do so with no ROI (Return on Investment) so to me this means that your candidates are no longer yours. And this issue is exposed clearly by those laws that are custom made against the majority of voters. The DCMA is a brilliant example of the Democratic party limiting civil liberties and research on behalf of the industry...

Take in account that statistical data could not spot a altered vote such as this i depict here: D is majority. D wants a law against the costumer not to be passed, R is in favour because of money previously taken from oligopolist - Oligopolist call selected D senators that received large sum of money - At the vote the law passes because R voted for and a minority of D voted for also. If you spread the pattern of the minority then statistical data analisys will not spot it. If you think this is unlikely to happen think twice, we are ejoying it in italy since 2000 when a duopolic system was established.

Re:heh

[Redwin]

While I know it is slightly off topic, does anyone know if there is a UK equivilant of opensecrets.org?

Cheers!

Re:heh

[Jerry]

And this link (http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02) shows that as far as the Entertainment Industry is concerned the Dems took in 70% of the quarter of a Billion in "campaign contributions" during since 1990. And they call the Reps the "part of big business".

They both have sold out. A pox on both of their houses.

Re:heh

[sm62704]

Republicans = Democrats = Sold out

Thank you for that. I stopped voting Republicrat a long time ago.

I want marijuana lagalized. The Republiceats don't. I want prostitution legalized (what unfuckable nerd doesn't?) The Republicrats don't. I want gambling legalized. The Republicrats don't.

I want the DMCA and Bono act repealed. The Republicrats don't.

I want the Republicrats to stop the sellout of jobs to foreign countries to stop. The Republicrats, both wings of whose whose campaigns are financed by BP, Shell, Sony, and the like, don't.

My country's government is run by people who owe their power to foreigners.

So I've been splitting my vote between the Greens and Libertarians. Because a vote for a person who is going to pass laws that are contrary to my interests is worse than a wasted vote. A vote for a person whose campaign is financed by foreigners is IMO a traitorous vote.

-mcgrew

Re:heh

[Xeth]

I don't think that anyone who says "there's no difference" actually means it literally. There are obvious, well publicized differences on several key issues (abortion, gun control, etc.). What they mean is that there isn't a lot of significant philosophical difference between the two. Both parties are, compared to the rest of the world, very right-wing. Both have strong anti-libertarian leanings. Instead of selecting candidates based on an overall approach to government, U.S politics are generally played by litmus tests for 3-5 issues (The war, gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, gun control). Claiming that there must be a significant difference because a computer can detect a difference is fallacious.

Re:heh

[mwvdlee]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

1 is very different from 2.
But when compared to 3983347701262, -928471225521772836564763 and 91827223890642116835828365562301823646, they're quite similar.

Try comparing your results with what 3rd parties would have voted.

Re:heh

[Walkingshark]

How much does a bottle of KY and 15 minutes in the bathroom equate to when reported as an "in kind" donation? Also, is semen that isn't swallowed and ends up being washed off the Senator's face tax deductable?

Re:heh

[jdjbuffalo]

They certainly do vote differently on some key issues but they are BOTH beholden to corporate interests and not to the public, from whom they derive their power.

A pig with lipstick is still a pig. It just looks prettier than the other ones.

We are in need of some serious reform (no lobbyists, no corporate personhood etc.). If you reduce the corporate interests down to about 90% of power they have over "our representatives" now then you will get a system that actually cares about the people rather than selling out to the highest bidder...er, I mean...lobbyist.

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Call your rep!
(I know, I'm a coward...)

Rep Berman, Howard L. [D-CA] 202-225-4695
Rep Cohen, Steve [D-TN] (202) 225-3265
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D-TX] (202) 225-3816
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA] (202) 225-4176 or (626) 304-2727
Rep Wexler, Robert [D-FL] (202) 225-3001 or 561-988-6302

Rep Chabot, Steve [R-OH] (202) 225-2216 or 513-684-2723
Rep Feeney, Tom [R-FL] (202) 225-2706
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA] (202) 225-5431
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA] 202-225-3906
Rep Keller, Ric [R-FL] (202) 225-2176
Rep Smith, Lamar [R-TX] (202) 225-4236

oddly enough, my security word is "cabinet"

Re:heh

[pclminion]

Try comparing your results with what 3rd parties would have voted.

How am I supposed to get data on what various people "would have" done? Anyway, the independents are in the voting record along with everyone else. They were part of the experiment. As I said, the algorithm dropped them into the Democrat category. I did not cause this to happen by artificially restricting the number of clusters.

We could possibly glean more detailed information about the independents, if there were more of them. Sadly, there are not. Your complaint on this amounts to a "Boo hoo."

Re:heh

[vldmr_krn]

When "dumb," statistically based data mining software is capable of grasping the clear differences between Republican and Democrat, it becomes impossible to argue with a straight face that the two parties are the same. A fucking computer can tell the difference, why can't a human?

Because humans can weigh the importances of the issues. If you disagree with both parties on what you perceive to be key issues, it makes no difference that their disagreements on the remaining issues follow a pattern. Neither Republicans nor Democrats consistently make an effort to decrease the burden of the government on American citizens. Both parties take every chance they get to grow the bureaucracy still further. It is not okay that I work 4 months out of the year just to cover my tax debt. It is not okay that a 2006 dollar is worth less than 5% of the 1910 dollar. Sure, they're pandering to different demographics, but so what?

Wrong decimal place?

[IronMagnus]

Maybe they ment $15

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[SailorSpork]

Actually, that's about what each infringement is worth. If you use filesharing, and if for each song you download, you upload a song, your infringement for downloading/uploading and album on that fileshare would be about the cost of that same album; about $15. I still don't understand how any competent mind can come up with any more than that per infraction.

Since filesharing is on average 1:1, It's not that each person uploading ten songs is causing thousands of dollars worth of damages, its that thousands of different people are causing ten's of dollars of damage each. But if that were how it was stated in court, legal fees would outweigh damages, and lawsuits would no longer become lucrative sources of income.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Bearhouse]

Not sure that's true. Look at the ratios. Ever since Napster and WinMX, there's always been a few with high bandwidth/willingness to share/got stuff you want feeding the others.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[bane2571]

The "average" ratio on, for example bit torrent should always be 100% since everyone downloading is getting the file from someone else that downloaded it. I guess the original seeder would put the ratio slightly above 100% but I'm sure you get my point.

The thing is that average is likely propped up by a small minority of high ratio users and your average john doe would have a low ratio. From reporting here, the RIAA has been going after average people rather than high ratio people. at a guess I'd say my ratio never topped 80%, which is pretty good IMO as my max upload was 1/4 of my max download. My point is that most people will only ever upload maximum 1 CD for each CD. Even with double dipping by charging uploader and downloader it would make most people liable for 2X[cost of CD] not 100,000 X[cost of CD]

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Software]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress disagrees with your valuation of infringement. From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html :

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

The penalties built into the law are to deter the behavior, not just to remedy one infraction. We don't say to burglars, "that's OK, just give the stuff back and we're square" (I'm not equating copyright infringement and stealing, I'm just pointing out the nature of penalties).

The $1.5 million per CD is consistent with the law if we assume that the infringement was willful and there are 10 songs on the CD. If you assume that the CD is a work as a whole -- see the last sentence of part (1) above -- then $150,000 per CD is appropriate.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[dirk]

It's not very hard to come up with a different number. You are basing your number as if the RIAA was suing people for having MP3s they didn't pay for. In that case, the correct fine would be somewhere close to what it would cost to purchase the MP3s (plus some punitive damages I would assume). The thing is though, none of these suits has anything to do with having MP3s that weren't purchased, but about distributing MP3s that your don't have the rights to distribute. If the makers of those crappy Now! cds contact the RIAA (or more specifically the record company) and ask what it would cost to license the newest hit song to put on their CD, do you think that it would cost the same as to purchase the song via iTunes? Even if they say they are going to give away the CD for free, the cost is still going to be huge, because they are acquiring the rights to distribute the song. So when you distribute the song via P2P, you are not acquiring a copy of the song, but you are assuming the right to distribute the song, which is worth a lot more.

Is the 1.5 million for CD too much? Yes, I think that is outrageous. But so is saying the distribution rights for a CD are only worth $15 total. I actually think what they are usually suing for (a couple thousand per song) is probably around the right range for the rights to most songs.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[EdelFactor19]

except they have to fine for you breaking the law. you stole it you didnt buy it. If i go steal a 100$ item from store X do you think store X will drop the charges if I simply pay 100$ after the fact? NO they wont; if they did that then theyd be encouraging me to steal anything i would actually purchase. Worst case scenario I get caught and I pay them the money I would have paid them.. they tag on things like arrests, and jailtime and tarnishing your record and additional fines and legal fees to deter the behavior. Thats pretty normal. Tacking on 1.5million not so normal

Here's my take on it: MAFIAA loves to advertise in the cinema "would you steal a wallet? would you steal a cd? would you steal cardboard box? etc..." ok if you want to equate these things whats the punishment for stealing CD X from a physical store? Oh you mean its less than a hundred thousand let alone a million? So how do you justify your punishment for the same crime....

they will respond its a different kind of crime, stealing a CD is theft, but downloading and uploading is a copyright violation which is entirely different as far as law is concerned. (and i'd be inclined to agree sadly) Ok but if you want to say that you are going to have to throw out your other campaign, and actually follow the same rules that everyone else has to in uncovering copyright violations. heres a new line of q's for yah

"would you photocopy a page or two from a library book without writing to the author and bringing authorization forms filled out in triplicate?"
"would you transcribe a song by ear becuase you enjoy it and post the tab on the internet?"
"would you resummarize a summary of the news by someone else and present it as "nightly news"?"
"would share a recipe with a friend that you read in a cookbook you bought and that you like?"

There thats a much better picture of what you are actually comparing don't you think?

It seems to me they are trying to use laws of theft to prosecute copyright violations. Granted I'm still a supporter of copyright law, sorry I am a software developer. If I cant control my work its hard to make money. But why can't they go to some more intelligent less invasive means for copyright protection that have been effective for software? Software copyright protection generally doesnt give a crap if you are running windows or linux or mac or an electronic watermellon. Ok it might not work on the latter; that aside the mechanisms are somewhat seperate from the content.

The other problem i see is they force you to buy something and then hamper your rights to use what you purchase. Oh you cant play that wmv drm'd file on linux... oh you cant play that itunes store audio file on a Zplayer or on linux... Oh you arent really allowed to copy music files from your ipod to your computer (except you sorta are) but by the way we also arent going to let you redownload lost purchases from us unless you send us an email and ask real nice.

i bought years upon years ago, ive installed and unintalled it on every machine ive gone through since (primary machines) never had a problem because of the copyright protection scheme. never had a problem where i couldnt install it because a hard drive it was installed on died without being deauthorized. you know what else? i felt compelled not to give it to others because of that. that and it was cheap self created fun (as opposed to big publisher).. i think the game was like 10-20 bucks maybe? granted games today are a bit more... but maybe thats part of the problem. If the market isnt willing to pay the price, they wont. wow thats a really cruddy ending to this rambling...

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Arcane_Rhino]

I don't have any actual inside information but a master produces 100,000 copies of a CD in round figures. $15 * 100,000 = $1.5 million. Quite simple, really.

Professional counterfeiters really do obtain masters and engage in such counterfeiting actions. That said, however, it is noteworthy that the RIAA routinely fuzzes or flat-out ignores the distinction between a professional counterfeiters and "your" sister or "my" grandmother who downloads 10 or 20 songs for their own use but does so without paying the recording industry their desired fee.

Such extraordinarily disingenuous behavior is one of the reasons that I chose to side against the interests of the RIAA.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. They call it stealing, by that logic, shouldn't violators be liable for $15 and maybe a mark on their permanent record.

On the other hand, maybe we should give them the $1.5 mil. That way, everyone that gets sued would file for bankruptcy. The few that could pay could also afford to win.

It kinda makes for an interesting picture of how congress views filesharing. Shoplift --> go to jail for a few hours. Cheat on your taxes --> pay what you owe plus interest and a penalty. Kill someone --> lose your earning potential and your freedom for a few years. Download two CDs --> lose all of the money that the average American is likely to earn over their entire working lifetime, die poor and hungry.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sure i fail to see what all the outrage is about....
isn't a demand of restitution on the order of one hundred
thousand times the value of something just standard operating
procedure? i mean heck, don't we already fine corporate
embezzelers one hundred million dollars per 10 thousand
dollars they embezzle.... er, uh, maybe...wait a minute...

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Nethemas the Great]

Does this have anything to do with Verizon math?

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Pikoro]

"For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work."

Am I reading this right?

I take that to mean that, unless I upload an entire album (work) to one person, then it is not infringement. However, with something like bittorrent, I may only upload a part of a file (not to mention an entire album) to a person and never send the entire file to one person. That person will get parts of the file from everyone who is downloading and uploading.

So, does this mean that, by using bittorrent, it is next to impossible for someone to infringe?

OR, does this mean the opposite? That distributing even one part of a work is infringement?

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[CSMatt]

In my experience deactivation in DRM products seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I can't "deactivate" my retail copy of Windows XP or Microsoft Office for installing on a different computer after uninstalling from the previous one. If I buy a retail copy of Half-Life 2 and later decide that I want to get rid of it, I can't "deactivate" the copy from my Steam account.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Weedlekin]

"$15 * 100,000 = $1.5 million. Quite simple, really."

And also quite wrong. The retail price of $15 includes both wholesaler and dealer mark-ups, which account for at least 50% of it, so the gross amount that the music company gets is about $7.50 a copy. This does of course assume that they've manufactured a CD, and and it's sitting around in a warehouse or on a dealer's shelf because "pirates" have stopped people from buying it. If this isn't the case, then they aren't paying manufacturing, storage, and distribution costs, which are factored into that $7.50, so the IP alone on the CD is worth about $6 (I'm being generous here), and IP is what they claim the "pirates" are "stealing".

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Svartalf]

It's called punitive damages.

It's intended to try to ensure you don't do it again- and to possibly don't do it in the first place.

Unfortunately, for all parties involved, I think this falls under the "unusual" category- and should
be reconsidered, not that they're going to be rational about it or anything. Yes, you've got file
sharers. Thing is as long as you lot in the RIAA bunch keep making crap for protected works and
keep treating the common person like a thief, you're going to keep losing sales and NOT to file
sharing. I know one thing, I definitely don't have much of any desire whatsoever for the new
stuff they generate, I've pretty much quit listening to radio and listen only to the things I already
have legitimate copies of, whether they came off of my CD collection or from off of legal download
sites from unsigned performers.

I don't need their crap. And it's that.

Neither do any of you lot, either.

If everyone quits buying it, quits sharing it, quits listening to it, we'll have a hell of a lot
less buying of laws that are strictly in violation of the Bill of Rights and better music and
video (movies, television, etc...) to boot.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[jonaskoelker]

would you resummarize a summary of the news by someone else

No, that's the editors' job ;)

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Almahtar]

s the 1.5 million for CD too much? Yes, I think that is outrageous. But so is saying the distribution rights for a CD are only worth $15 total. I agree $15 is outrageous. If distribution rights were free I think we'd see a world of good.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Arcane_Rhino]

And also quite wrong.

Entirely possible, hence my caveat that, to make it clearer, I am completely speculating.

I would point out, however, that I have worked extensively with copyright holders and trademark owners, including the RIAA and the MPAA acting as their representation. When law enforcement makes a seizure of articles, a counterfeit copy of Microsoft Office for example, both the industry and the government assign the amount that the industry was protected at the MSRP. So, while lawyers pull numbers out of their ass like everyone else and I have already indicated that I do not know for sure where the specific amounts came from, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. The calculation I describe is exactly the type of "quick and dirty" computing I see used in the field all the time to assess "harm to the industry".

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Weedlekin]

"I would point out, however, that I have worked extensively with copyright holders and trademark owners, including the RIAA and the MPAA acting as their representation. When law enforcement makes a seizure of articles, a counterfeit copy of Microsoft Office for example, both the industry and the government assign the amount that the industry was protected at the MSRP."

If your claim about representing such bodies is true, then you obviously know the legal difference between counterfeiting and copyright violation. Why then are you trying to pretend that damage calculations for one category of illegal act are applicable to a different one?

Clue: counterfeit goods don't have to be either copies of existing goods, or carry identical trademarks or other manufacturer identification information.

Re:Wrong decimal place?

[Arcane_Rhino]

Look dude. Never claimed to represent them. The grandparent was wonder how they came up with a calculation because it had no reasonable basis that anyone could figure out. No, copyright is not the same thing as counterfeit. It was a practical example and stated as such because I know from first hand that law enforcement agencies tend to cite TM violations rather than copyright violations when seizing violative software because, legally, it is easier to demonstrate. Yes, I realize the thread is discussing copyright violations concerning music, not software. Mine was a speculative example. (Example: used in this context as in an analogy to something I know about to speculate about something I don't.)

Your pedantic fascination with picking apart my posts is... odd. Are you a lawyer for the RIAA and trying to deflect my SPECULATIONS by seizing on irrelevancies to discredit points that I was not making? If not, your sure sound like one.

Please read the thread and chill out.

I will give you the last word since I suspect you are the type of person that needs that. Take a breath and relax; you will live longer.

Walmart

[im_thatoneguy]

Fuck it. If they say I'm stealing it I'm just going to start "ripping" music from Walmart. The fines are cheaper and less signficant on a criminal record.

Re:Walmart

[StringBlade]

If you're going to steal CDs, why not start with a store that doesn't put RFIDs on all of it's merchandise?

Re:Walmart

[riseoftheindividual]

I hope it passes for that and for the tact I expect most to take... you don't need their shit, you don't need it. Why does anyone need a CD or to listen to the music produced by the people funding this? We don't.

It's not like software that we might need for work to get paid. It's not like clothing where you tend to get in trouble if you go around without it(damn conservative society). It's not like food where you starve to death without it. This is entertainment. It's just not neccessary. If they get this passed, I predict a major collapse of the recording industry as it is today. Big names will begin striking out on their own to distance themselves from the companies associated with these moves.

Sorry Metallica, U2, and whoever else, life was good before you and life will be good after you. May this legislation pass so they can have the rude awakening they so desperately deserve.

Re:Walmart

[Kuukai]

Actually, IANAL, but in their "ideal" world I'm pretty sure the RIAA would sue you for stealing the IP on top of the physical disc, or something...

Re:Walmart

[LandDolphin]

I don't think there will be major changes. I agree with you that people should revolt against the RIAA and stop purchasing their products. But people wont. People do not want have anything get in the way of their instant gratification.

Re:Walmart

[AP2k]

As a slashdotter, I would have expected you to applaud him for sticking it to WalMart for their use of RFID tags.

Re:Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

just remove it from the cd case , even if you are caught (never happen) they won't do anything thats not over $1250.00 in cost.

Re:Walmart

[codemachine]

I think even in a more liberal society, I'll opt to wear clothing when it is -39C outside.

Re:Walmart

[riseoftheindividual]

You could be right, but, it has already started to happen to a degree, people not purchasing their products anymore. Instant gratification can be had all over the net with things that don't involve music(or porn). It's just a matter of getting the right trend going.

And of course, it starts with us as individuals. There's some artists I will buy from because of their public stance on all this, and some who will never see a dime of mine again(I used to be a big Metallica fan, now they can sod off and die now for all I care).

We can't control others, but we can control ourselves and that will influence those around us.

And really, the first time someone got fined that much for copying a CD, don't think there won't be a substantial public backlash. Instant gratification or not, being fined so severely for something so trivial will rile up oceans of illwill, of that I would bet money.

Re:Walmart

[einhverfr]

foil-lined briefcases, here we come ;-)

Seriously, this would help show that RFID is a pretty lousy anti-theft technology....

Re:Walmart

[riseoftheindividual]

I think even in a more liberal society, I'll opt to wear clothing when it is -39C outside.

If it's -39C where you live, I think a clothing optional society is the least of your concerns.

Re:Walmart

[viscus]

Walmart doesn't have any music worth stealing.

Re:Walmart

[evilklown]

If the RIAA were really clever, they'd copyright their name and acronym and sue every user of /. for posting about them without paying their $1 usage fee.

But they'd sue you for $100,000 for each infringement.

Re:Walmart

[bconway]

Fuck it. If they say I'm stealing it I'm just going to start "ripping" music from Walmart. The fines are cheaper and less signficant on a criminal record.

As an alternative to either form of piracy/theft, you could consider buying the $10 CD and save those couple trips to McDonald's for next month.

Re:Walmart

[Sleepy]

>I agree with you that people should revolt against the RIAA and stop purchasing their products. But people wont.

WAIT... maybe the RIAA *WANTS* people to boycott them?

Think about it -- lower sales means PERFECT cover to lobby Congress for another copyright extension.
Sound far fetched? The RIAA already uses lower CD sales for this goal... they leave out legal MP3 sales, and neglect to factor in consumer preference for downloads to begin with.

(I realize the RIAA really *doesn't* want lower sales, but they're licensing music outside of the CD and then leaving that out of the picture).

Re:Walmart

[jcgf]

It hit that hear in Regina on Monday :(

Re:Walmart

[Paradise Pete]

just remove it from the cd case , even if you are caught (never happen) they won't do anything thats not over $1250.00 in cost.

Just a tip: Your friends hanging out down at the 7-11 at night are not a good source of wisdom and advice.

Re:Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! It's about time that people realize that is not like someone is putting a gun to their heads coercing them to buy this. There is the power button and the cancel button. Saying 'no' is often the most difficult choice one can make. When sufficient numbers of people make this choice, change shall occur.

There is always the jury box. Keeping people who have a stake in the system via jobs and/or investments out of said box is a must.

Downmodding proves veracity beyond question. It's not worth wasting the points.

Re:Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a big Metallica fan, now they can sod off and die now for all I care

Who whould want to remain a fan of Metallica after Load and Reload. With those two albums and everything afterwards, Metallica started putting out the same shit to the same tune.

Re:Walmart

[xkhaozx]

You got modded Funny, but this is one of the most insightful comments I have ever read...

Re:Walmart

[codemachine]

Usually it gets near this cold at least one week every winter. Was a relatively balmy -28C today. Though not having wind most of the day was nice - windchill factors of -54C aren't fun.

Normal temperatures aren't this bad though - I'm not living in Siberia or the North Pole or anything. Just feels like it once in a while.

Re:Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know what they say...

"If it's minus 39 in Regina,
Wear a scarf on your vagina!"

Re:Walmart

[justinlee37]

Paying for music? Eating at McDonald's?

I think you might be lost little sheep, the rest of the herd went that way.

Re:Walmart

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I heard somewhere that they are requiring suppliers to RFID tag *pallets* of merchandise, not individual items. But, I could be wrong about that.

Re:Walmart

[im_thatoneguy]

Well what's even more absurd is that this is such a niche industry as it is. It's a very wealthy, very profitable industry but where a film *requires* hundreds to thousands of people to create to the quality we consumers demand-- a very high quality album can be produced by less than a dozen individuals for $40k.

Artists should be payed for their work. No question. But how many artists were actually financially staying afloat before MP3s? How many artist ever GOT 1.5 million dollars in revenue before MP3s? Maybe the top 100. We're talking about a world of consumers who listen to American music. Billions of people consume American media and yet someone who rips a CD (who probably used to share tapes, and before that probably used to listen to the radio and whose shopping habits probably haven't changed) has come to be criminalized and fined with outrageous amounts all so that the 100 people at the top can hit their platinum album to put on the wall.

Fine let's take the official line at face value. "Piracy hurts artists and they'll stop producing music." Ok... go! Stop making music if Piracy is hurting you financially so much. 100 people will lose their jobs and have to find another career path.

We're spending millions of dollars on enforcement. Arresting, harassing and bankrupting otherwise contributing members of society in order to ensure a super minority continues to enjoy a posh lifestyle.

Piracy hurts the big bands far worse than it hurts the indies. The indies already had to tour and perform and market themselves. If they were popular enough to be on Napster they were popular enough to see a healthy revenue stream from CDs and Tour bookings.

The people who are going to lose their jobs because of piracy will be the leaches. The ones who know regardless if someone pays for a song when it's served by a computer their job is gone. Those are the ones fighting to the death. Because in an Amazon economy if your job is useless you can bet there'll be a computer who can do it 100 times better and a 1000 times cheaper.

There is a fundamental disconnect between what the consumer is demanding: Tens of Thousands of songs and the current market rate of a song. But that runs contrary to what the top echelon of musicians wants. If someone is going to buy 5 albums a year, they want one of those albums to be theirs. If songs were 11 cents each or less people would purchase a huge diversity of music with almost no regard as to whether it turned out good or not. "Whatever 10 cents I'll buy a few and see if it's any good." Which if there wasn't a monopoly on talent in the universe would be fine... their sales would increase and the 10 cents would balance out... but that's not a case. Music has become so embedded into our society we can't conceive of not listening to it. The top 100 artists are going to be purchased by a significant majority of the *potential* customer base. If you cut prices by even 40% you won't see a 40% increase in volume...

The top artist know they've maximized their volume and they're going to milk it for all its worth.

If we look at this from a societal standpoint we would recognize that we could reward and employ tens of thousands of artists and technicians simply by dropping the cost of a song. The indie needs volume. The indie needs someone to take a risk, which is a hard sell at $15. A greater majority of society would be rewarded by lower cost, higher volume market.

I'm just afraid with all of this demonization of piracy and the backlash from citizens that the entire system is going to be consumed in an riotous orgy of anarchism and take decades to be put back together into a rational, artist friendly, consumer oriented structure where piracy seems absurd when so much good music can be had for so little.

Re:Walmart

[Weedlekin]

"I agree with you that people should revolt against the RIAA and stop purchasing their products. But people wont."

Recorded music sales have declined drastically all over the world during the last few years, so it's obvious that significant numbers of people _have_ stopped purchasing their products, although revolts against the media industry are probably not one of the significant contributing factors.

Re:Walmart

[LandDolphin]

While CD sales are down, MP3 sales are up. So, it is not that people have stopped purchasing music, it is just that they have switched to a different medium. Very akin to how Cassette sales went down when CD sales went up. So it is not that peopel have stopped purchasing their products, they are jsut purchasing them on a different format.

Re:Walmart

[Weedlekin]

"While CD sales are down, MP3 sales are up."

Where did I mention CDs? I said that sales of _recorded music_ have dropped steadily since 1999, and recorded music clearly includes downloadable content.

"So, it is not that people have stopped purchasing music, it is just that they have switched to a different medium."

I suggest you check some statistics before making claims like this one. Digital downloads rose by 40% during 2007, but this was not enough to offset the decline in CD sales, so the overall market for recorded music fell by 10% in terms of units sold (revenue fell a lot more due to the fact that people tend to buy songs online rather than albums).

"So it is not that peopel have stopped purchasing their products"

The entire market for recorded music is about half of what it was in 1999-2000, which means, as I said, that significant numbers of people have stopped purchasing their products (while some of course may be continuing to purchase them less often).

NB: 1999 was a peak year that may well have helped considerably by baby boomers buying CD versions of content they already had on vinyl or tape.

Re:Walmart

[amohat]

Cynically, you're right.

But what happens to an artist's soul when he signs up with the dark side? At some point, they start to suck ass. Maybe they would have anyway. But just maybe, the gift of talent they possess wastes away under the shadow of greed.

Also, the fan changes. Sure, we naturally grow up and out of an artist. But fans have this special bond with music they like. Something magical happens, it speaks to our soul. There's a connection, and for some of us, and I argue more and more of us, we cannot enjoy the music like we used to when we know enough about the artist to know they they are scumballs. The connection, this soul-link, withers away.

For example: R Kelly. I used to be a big fan, grew up with him. That shit was hot. Classics. But every time I hear him now, I just hear a pedophile, pissing on a 14 year old. Who can take Michael Jackson seriously, even his old classic hits? Some, but most reject him.

Artists know this, and most hide their politics and private lives so that we don't hate them and their music. (on the flip side, some music ain't so great but we like the artist/message)

Re:Walmart

[LandDolphin]

I'd have to agree with you about how knowledge of an artist affects your ability to enjoy them. On a personal note, growing up I enjoyed a few Kiss songs, but never knew much about them. After learning about Gene simmons and what a money hungry phone he can be, I can't find enjoyment in their songs anymore.

Re:Walmart

[amohat]

Exactly. Consumers need to practice better patronage: good people support good people, reject the scum.

So

[vinividivici]

Like the majority of the internet, my music collection would cost me 2,250,000,000. Greedy bastards.

Re:So

[Em Adespoton]

Good point... I'm thinking I should return my CD collection to the RIAA for a refund.

Either that, or see if I can catch them in possession of some of MY music (independently produced) and ask them to pay up.

If I play some of my music in the background while I call their customer relations line and they record and archive the call, can I sue them?

Re:So

[nickj6282]

Your mistake is assuming that the RIAA has any clue what customer relations is.

"What the hell is a customer? Wait? Is that the senile grandmas and disabled single mothers we take to court? Yeah, they are good customers. We get tons of money from those suckers!"

Re:So

[darrenkw]

I would think so. Let us know how it turns out. I might have to turn into a musician.... It wouldn't matter if the songs were awful and nobody would buy them. They couldn't be worse than some of the stuff out there and it would only take one success and I could look at retiring @ 50.

Re:So

[timmarhy]

"If I play some of my music in the background while I call their customer relations line and they record and archive the call, can I sue them?"

i hope you do that because in america's crazy legal system it might just stick. no matter how you cut it that recording is just as much an infringment as anything they've sued other people over, and you atleast have the name of the infringing party none of this john doe crap.

Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[frankie]

Sweet! At that damage level, the RIAA could afford to ditch all pretense of supporting music, and make a killing by sending lawyers down the street in major metro areas to slap subpoenas on every passerby with an MP3 player.

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[jd]

Funny you should talk about killing. There was a news story recently about a driver who hit and killed a pedestrian, then sued the family for damages to his car. I think we should check to see if he's on the RIAA's advisory panel.

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[Achromatic1978]

He didn't sue the family, he sued the /estate/ of the pedestrian. Reasonable enough, if, as you have no idea of knowing, the pedestrian was at fault. Did they step out into a busy street? If it's the pedestrian's fault, are you saying that the driver should suck up the guilt for the rest of his life, /and/ shell out for the damage done?

Should he claim insurance?

Who do you think the insurance company would sue to reimburse their costs? The estate of the pedestrian.

Granted it's an unsavory thought, but if that car was your livelihood, and the accident was not your fault, why in the hell should you not try to recover costs?

It's grim and should be approached with tact, but...

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedestrians are often extremely stupid, sometimes malicious, and on rare occasions actively suicidal.

In California pedestrians have the right of way, which they either think means they are invincible or that cars can stop instantaneously. The pedestrians are required to show they are planning on crossing the street. About half of them don't even bother to make eye contact. Some stand in the street while waiting for the light to change.

A man once came running out of his yard and jumped in front of me screaming that I was driving too fast a la The World According to Garp. (For the record, I was traveling a couple of miles per hour under the speed limit as I always do in residential areas.) I would not blame any driver who had hit him. He was practically trying to be hit.

Without knowing the details of the particular story you mentioned it is impossible for us to reach any conclusion at all about the behavior of the driver.

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[Hillgiant]

Yeah. It worked really well for SCO.

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[The_DoubleU]

They where both wrong.
The car was speeding, the pedestrian didn't give way (or something like that).

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[jd]

Bits of the pedestrian gave way. The driver was cited by police as doing 20+ MPH over the speed limit, although the news story cites (unnamed) independent experts as saying it would have been closer to 40 MPH over the speed limit. (The speed limit was 55 MPH). Far as I can tell from the news article, the driver is not claiming that there was shared responsibility for the accident or that the pedestrian did anything wrong, merely that the pedestrian caused damage to his Audi. If that really is the whole story, then the attitude is no different from the RIAA's (bringing this thread back on topic).

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[laura20]

That's what I thought myself, until I looked up the original Spanish articles. His insurance company settled with the family of the dead bicyclist, admitting that the driver was at fault since he was speeding (estimated at over 100 mph in a 55 mile zone), and he had also been drinking. Then the driver sued them, presumably because his own insurance didn't cover his damage. So yes, the guy is a dick, is at fault, and is probably going to regret the lawsuit; the family was too devastated in the immediate aftermath to push for criminal charges, but that has changed.

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[Achromatic1978]

In that case, absolutely. As I had no idea whether we were referring to the same case, I added the qualifiers. :)

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[jd]

As did I. Of course, neither of us is in a position to ever really know what happened, all we can ever go by is the limited (and likely editorialized) information made available, which is why it's so important to add all the qualifiers. If there was an error made in this thread, it was on my part for not putting in enough qualifiers in the first place.

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[Rogerborg]

Speaking of killing, why don't they just push for the death penalty for copyright infringement? I mean, it's about as proportional as paying $1.5 million for ripping a Britney Spears CD.

Re:Innovation through Litgation!(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not pedestrian but cyclist.

The driver claims there was shared responsibility. Cyclist had no lights nor reflective garment

Obligatory Dr Evil

[AngelKurisu]

One point Five meeeeeeeeeeeeeelion dollars! *pinky*

Re:Obligatory Dr Evil

[EEPROMS]

Number Two: Don't you think we should ask for *more* than a 1.5 million dollars? 1.5 million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Sony Records alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year! Dr. Evil: Really? That's a lot of money. [pause] Dr. Evil: Okay then, we hold the world's culture to ransom for... Dr. Evil: One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!

The question that comes to mind...

[FredFredrickson]

Why is it that they want more money in damages from a copy to a format that doesn't inheretly lend itself to being copied an unknown number of times- whereas there's actually a question of how many times copyright infringement happens to a file in a share folder- but they get much less for a shared folder collection...?

Re:The question that comes to mind...

[Markspark]

and by the same standars, shouldn't all of their music count as assets, and be taxed as such? (ie, let them pay 1 million dollar tax / album they've made a copy of, and infinite for each mp3) should make them lower their claims a bit.

austin powers

[TheRealZeus]

this reminds me of that scene in austin powers where the evil dude is trying to pick an amount of ransom money

What have these guys been smoking ?

[Alain Williams]

And can I have some ?

Re:What have these guys been smoking ?

[jamstar7]

Dude, that's RIAA we're talkin bout here. They're against sharing.

Bet we can sue 'em a couple mil for bong rental tho...

Wow

[psbrogna]

1.5 Million?! This seems like a really pathetic cry for help. They must really be scared about the revenue they're losing because they're not evolving with the times. That's too bad.

Re:Wow

[RHSC]

that's the thing though, they haven't been losing any revenue all along

Right then

[Anonymous Coward]

All you trolls that insist copyright infringement is the same as stealing, please point out a single instance of somebody being fined $1.5 million dollars for stealing a CD.

Re:Right then

[pimpimpim]

This quote is one to remember. Now these d**kheads have to make up excuses to put copyright infringement equal to at least a bank robbery, rape, or drive-by shootings.

Re:Right then

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a troll, just a guy who has legitimate considered opinion that's different from yours. And I haven't heard anyone ever say that copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing, just that copyright infringement is a subset of stealing. And I haven't heard of any law that says you need to agree with any or everything the RIAA does in order to believe that. And I have no idea how you got any insightful mods.

Re:Right then

[Yetihehe]

Copyright infridgement is like stealing. Stealing a cop his helmet. And then killing him. And then taking dump into his helmet. And sending it to the widow. And then stealing it again!

Re:Right then

[john83]

Oh, for mod points... The IT Crowd, for those of you who don't get the reference.

Re:Right then

[houghi]

Not yet, but very soon each and every lawsuit filed by the RIAA.

Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[EEPROMS]

Mr Evil "I demand the sum... OF 1 MILLION DOLLARS."

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't spend four years at Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.', thank you very much.

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[EEPROMS]

Number Two: Don't you think we should ask for *more* than 1.5 million dollars? 1.5 million isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Fony Records alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year!
Dr. Evil: Really? That's a lot of money.
[pause]
Dr. Evil: Okay then, we hold the worlds culture to ransom for...
Dr. Evil: One... Hundred... BILLION DOLLARS!

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[billius]

It's Dr. Evil, he didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much!

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[ShadowMarth]

It's Doctor Evil you insensitive clod!

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[stor]

So Dr. Evil ransomed our entire planet for less than the RIAA wants *per cd*

-Stor

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[NoNickNameForMe]

Paradoxically, in British (English?) Medical Schools, a MD is a Bachelor's degree, and a postgraduate in Medicine earns the title of 'Mr.'

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[JonathanR]

Perhaps he's now a surgeon.

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[trburkholder]

It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much.

Re:Obligatory Austin Powers Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

We ought to feed you to the IP sharks with frikin blu lasers on their heads!

IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[denis-The-menace]

The penalty would be much less than this.

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[ivan256]

One pirated CD copy is worth more than a human life!

An above-average wrongful death compensation award for a healthy working parent would be in the $1-3 million dollar range. You could go murder somebody. It'd be cheaper than pirating a few CDs. And if the CDs had DRM, the jail sentence would be shorter for the murder too! The US military pays out $600 for wrongful deaths in Iraq. A pirated CD copy is worth more than 2500 Iraqis!

In reality though, they're probably asking for so much in hopes that the compromise amount will be high. Hopefully congress tells them to fuck off instead of coming up with a "compromise" that is right in line with what they were really hoping for anyway.

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[JensenDied]

Does this mean I can now go kill several people and leave a few burned CD's for their families as compensation and continue with my day?

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[Anonymous Coward]

Their position is that the physical theft is less harmful. One lost sale, as opposed to millio-- oh wait, $15M is also for just one act of copyright infringement? Never mind.

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[im_thatoneguy]

When I was getting an online quote for new car insurance I wasn't sure what to classify a moving violation I had from 2 years ago so I just started seeing which would be the cheapest per month to classify it as.

I made an interesting discovery:

Failing to signal while changing lanes is more expensive per month than:
Vehicular Homicide or a DUI.

!?

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[Jesus_666]

Cogress should tell them that they considered the amount and will settle on a compromise that is 20% lower than the current maximum. After the bill has been passed they add that the RIAA should try to at least make it look like their business model was somewhat modest.

In eality, though, Congress will probably say: "Yes, sir, mister retirement fund, sir. Would you like mandatory jail time with that?"

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[TheNarrator]

An above-average wrongful death compensation award for a healthy working parent would be in the $1-3 million dollar range. You could go murder somebody. It'd be cheaper than pirating a few CDs. And if the CDs had DRM, the jail sentence would be shorter for the murder too! The US military pays out $600 for wrongful deaths in Iraq. A pirated CD copy is worth more than 2500 Iraqis!
But you forget, dead formerly working parents and Iraqis don't give big campaign contributions.

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that $600 figure really is sickening. Adjusted for inflation, the 3000 (2993, rounding a bit) deaths of 9/11 would've been "worth" $1.8m. Pitched against the Euro, a Jan 1 USD is worth just about $.61, (de-)valuing the attack to about $1.1m, that's 73% of the supposed value of an audio cd.
What I want to say here: However small the tragic death toll of an event like 9/11 may be, this is perversion at it's worst. You're allowing an universally-hated organization like the RIAA to try and turn copying one CD into a crime worse than killing thousands of humans. If this copyright BS isn't stopped, little Johnny from 4th grade should soon top the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for copying that <insert in band here> album for that cute girl he met at the mall. If we were to presume a 12 song average, this would equate copying a single song to half a year of full-blown war of your government against you.
Please, for the love of <insert deity here>, stop this idiocy.

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be inclined to murder someone if I was found liable for 1.5mil for burning a CD.

Scratch that, a few someones.

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[ex0a]

Screw over an Iraqi's life, pay him $600 dollars.
Screw over an American's life, pay him $600 dollars. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/24/economic.stimulus/

Man it's nice to know how much our government values people lives. Pfft

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you STILL can't play it on your MP3 player. So now, on top of the shoplifting charge, you'll STILL be fined for ripping the CD to listen to on your iPod.

Re:IOW: steal the physical CD from a store

[denis-The-menace]

Yes but "champagne" tracking service wouldn't see it and it legal to convert to MP3s.

If you steal the CD, it's theft. That's it.
If you DL the MP3s or an image of the CD, thats a (c) infringement, equivalent to photocopying a book. Now they want $15Mil for ONE track.

Dollar worth less these days

[chris_mahan]

I hadn't realized the US dollar had lost that much value recently...

Re:Dollar worth less these days

[Brandybuck]

Dollar: a piece of paper that when inked is worth less than the same piece of paper alone.

Re:Dollar worth less these days

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it's not as bad as post WWII Hungary. By 1946, 8.28*10^29 (828 octillion) pengos equaled one prewar pengo, and all the money in circulation was worth .001 cents.
Hungarian Pengo
Hyperinflation

Re:Dollar worth less these days

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes out to about 100 Canadian dollars.

They do not really mean it

[Anonymous Coward]

damages that would total $1.5 million for copying a CD with ten songs.

It actually appears that they are making an argument for the end of American capitalism, just through the absurdity of their demands.


The above posting was intended to be funny and I disclaim any injury to any party caused by its posting.

I know

[eclectro]

When they pass this law (and since when has congress not passed an "enhanced" copyright law) and it does not work, then the RIAA can then move on to more realistic "physical" punishments.

Like lethal injection.

Re:I know

[ChaosWeevil]

They wouldn't do a thing like that, silly.

It wouldn't make them any money!

About the author

[$RANDOMLUSER]

William Patry is currently Senior Copyright Counsel at Google Inc. His previous positions include: copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary; Policy Planning Advisor to the Register of Copyrights; Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. He is the author of numerous treatises and articles on copyright.

So, no axes to grind there, right? ;-)

In other words his current job is work for weak copyright protections.

Re:About the author

[TubeSteak]

Not to mention that his comment about gluttony was made Dec 13th of 2007 on his private blog
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071213-house-committee-hears-the-cons-of-the-pro-ip-act.html

In other words his current job is work for weak copyright protections. From reading that blog entry, he really seems to care about how screwed up the copyright situation is with respect to the public good.

Never Gonna Happen

[cslax]

8th Amendment makes that completely impossible. Cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[themushroom]

You're thinking of Paris Hilton's album, which has probably made $1.5 million in sales - total.

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[Fx.Dr]

made $1.5 million in sales - total.

But not in album sales - $1.5 million for new toilets in which the listening public has to vomit. One john just isn't enough these days.

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[Tr3vin]

You're thinking of Paris Hilton's album, which has probably made $1.5 million in sales - total. $1.5 million in sales? Are you telling me that she bought that many copies for herself?

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[jamstar7]

So we have RIAA and all its employees and members arrested and convicted for releasing so many Brittany Spears albums. Gotcha. I'm down for that...

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[cslax]

Let's do some math here. Say a CD is 20 dollars, to be generous. 1.5 mil / 20 = 75000 CDs. So, burning a CD == stealing 75000... Let's get real.

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[nuzak]

Actually excessive fines, also in the 8th.

You're of course assuming the constitution means a fucking thing these days.

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[cslax]

If this went before the Supreme Court, the whole thing would HAVE to be ruled unconstitutional. There's NO WAY IN HELL that this could ever possibly be upheld. And yes, the excessive fines was the clause I meant.

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[sumdumass]

Well, your partly off on a few things here. It isn't the government punishing anyone and it isn't the government fining anyone. It is a civil suit brought about by a party claiming they had been wronged and the government has only set the value of an object in a civil offense.

The interesting thing here is that since the suit is brought by the aggrieved party and not the government, the fines are actually damages compensated to the aggrieved party and the only think the government has done was set the limits within the law, it might be hard to get the 8th amendment to apply. If you look at civil suits, you will probably notice a relaxed standards for constitutional protections like with the 4th amendment and evidence obtained in less then honorable means. There is more too, like how free speech rights could make you not guilty of a criminal offense but not protect you in a civil or slander suit.

I remember something a while back where some protesters were arrested for damaging city property by gathering and trampling freshly planted grass and flower area in a side yard of a building housing a zoning meeting. They were release and had their records expunged because it was within their speech rights. But during this process, the crowd spilled into neighboring private property. The home owners successfully sued the group, organizers and speakers for the damages their protest event caused to their landscaping. Free speech wasn't enough to get them off the hook. I don't know exactly what the difference was but it shows how the constitution applies differently depending on who is bringing the case up, the government in a criminal suit or a private individual in a civil case.

I also remember more recently of a company, and I think it was a tobacco company, who used the "cruel and unusual punishment" and "the right to face your accuser" to get punitive damages reduced because the court considered all the other people who were damaged by their actions but were not part of the case. So I'm sure there might be some bearing on the situation but I'm not sure how much weight it would carry.

Re:Never Gonna Happen

[Nonillion]

What? Paris Hilton made an album? News to me....

More money than there is?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

This means that if every person in the US copied just one CD that would account for 4.5 * 10^14 dollars

No wonder the RIAA is ramping-up their tactics, look at how much they've already lost!

Re:More money than there is?

[Volante3192]

Interesting tactic...even if the level of copyright infringement stays the same, now they can claim even more in losses.

Maybe if some of those execs went to a press release wearing only a barrel with suspenders instead of Ralph Lauren Black Label suits I might, MIGHT, feel a twang of pity...

Re:More money than there is?

[countSudoku()]

Not only that but we now know what the price of any CD is really worth! Let's help the RIAA get their way!

I plan to:

1) pick up a guitar, make a crappy CD
2) have someone steal it
3) sue them!
4) ?
5) PROFIT!

It's that easy. I'm going to patent that method and then sue everyone who does the same thing! I am invincible! The Black Kinght always wins!

Over the top?

[SharpFang]

And I want death sentence for speeding.

Recooping losses...

[themushroom]

...from the albums being unlistenable crap not worth the purchase price in the first place, not lost album sales due to piracy.

That's how they can justify charging $150,000 per song when the songs on the CD were $1.50 -- no, I don't get it either.

What's Next?

[arizwebfoot]

Are they gonna next want you to sign over your first born for a lifetime of servitude?

On the other hand, maybe they'll take the ex-wife?

1.5 million? I think I see their problem...

[Xaivius]

If the recording industry thinks they're losing 1.5 million per CD, and PRESUMING that they aren't just money grubbing execs in a dying industry, then I'm beginning to think that they need to get their heads out of the clouds, and take a look at the history of commerce in america mandating laws. I'd hate to see the recording industry become a government operated corp...

How much of that $1.5 million...

[MojoRilla]

If this somehow managed to become law, I wonder how much of enormous fines actually end up in the hands of artists? My guess is less than $15 per album. The rest are expenses, after all.

Re:How much of that $1.5 million...

[JustNiz]

umm none actually. Its the labels that are suing for their damages, not those of the artist.

Something is wrong here

[TheGoodSteven]

So, what they are saying is that copying a CD deserves more of a punishment than does taking a CD from somebody by force?

Re:Something is wrong here

[sumdumass]

That's a relative translation that doesn't put much weight on the loss of freedom that comes with robbing a person.

"Engineering Expectations"

[plasmacutter]

These people are just "engineering expectations".

They introduce this outrageous dreck, then suggest something which is still outrageous but comparatively mild, like, for instance, forcing ISP's to disconnect users a-la france, or forcing them to pull great firewall of china style 'filtering', or prison sentences for college students.

Then, they'll bloviate on and on about how these new proposals are a "compromise"

Or.. this dreck is merely a red herring to distract activist groups away from that rider they put into the college funding bill to force schools to 'filter' their internet on pain of losing their federal grants.

Re:"Engineering Expectations"

[CodeBuster]

You are correct on both counts. This IS a case of "engineered expectations" so that a "reasonable compromise" can be reached AND also serves the simultaneous purpose of providing a hunk of meat for the activists to sink their teeth into while the real proposal flies in below the radar. They really ought to make the collected works of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu's Art of War required reading in high school so that people are actually prepared for the types of things that go on in the real world these days. It is frustrating to see the same tired old plays from the same dusty old political play book succeed again and again for the RIAA when really their actions are so transparent that anyone willing to take more than a casual glance at their activities would spot the ploys immediately. I suppose that people are either ignorant or they don't care or both.

Re:"Engineering Expectations"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo.. don't care. A few of my friends are anti-RIAA, DRM, etc. A large chunk of'em just really don't give a fuck. They want A.. don't care about details just A..

violation of the 18th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's fashionable (and fascistic) for the US government to ignore portions of, or even outright contradict the Constitution, but wouldn't a $1.5 mil fine be grossly disproportionate to the actual cost of infringing 10 songs on a CD? Do the words of the 18th Amendment even apply here?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Re:violation of the 18th Amendment

[Skuldo]

8th, not 18th.

Re:violation of the 18th Amendment

[daeley]

I know it's fashionable (and fascistic) for the US government to ignore portions of, or even outright contradict the Constitution, but wouldn't a $1.5 mil fine be grossly disproportionate to the actual cost of infringing 10 songs on a CD? Do the words of the 18th Amendment even apply here?

Probably not, but a $1.5 million fine per CD is as stupid an idea as what the 18th Amendment instituted.

Re:violation of the 18th Amendment

[aztec rain god]

Temperance now! We must prohibit this sinful act of listening to music! We'll get to dancing next.

Re:violation of the 18th Amendment

[sumdumass]

I think your looking at the 8th amendment.

But you have to consider that compensatory damages or even statutory damages are not fines or punishment in the sense of the government fining or punishing someone. You really have to look at the differences between a civil suit and a criminal suit and the laws behind them as well as who is behind the act.

Typically, statutory damages are there to help you recover losses. I can see a path where someone could lose 1.5 mill because of the first copying of a CD but it involves a lot of conditions not present with the recording companies. I think the idea behind large damages like this was originally to allow the circumstances to permit full recovery of losses but it has since then turned into a way to punish defendants without opening criminal prosecutions. This may be why you think "damages won" in a civil court is the same as a fine. Maybe the answer is to limit punitive damages to extreme situations?

Re:violation of the 18th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to decide if this is humor or not, especially considering the 18th amendment is/was prohibition.

--Sniped from WikiPedia
Amendment XVIII (the Eighteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, along with the Volstead Act (which defined "intoxicating liquors" excluding those used for religious purposes), established Prohibition in the United States. Ratified on January 16, 1919, it is notable as the only amendment to the United States Constitution that has been repealed (by the Twenty-first Amendment).

Because I *know* I've nodded at each and every 'what are they smoking?' post.

Just wondering...

[Sepiraph]

Is that in monopoly money?

Explain this, RIAA

[DigitAl56K]

If a single copy of a CD has a value of $1.5M, how can you justify letting hundreds of thousands of copies on it sit on the shelves of major retailers worldwide, priced at gasp $10-$20?

This suggests that if I were to publish a copy of a CD online , even assuming it retails at $20, I would have to serve 75,000 copies of it personally to justify that infringement penalty. Consider that the only feasible way for me to do such a thing is to torrent it, and in this case I personally am not responsible for the entire distribution, the total distribution must be subdivided across every single person who downloads a copy, because they are also uploaders. Claiming penalties against every distributor for the total distribution is like double taxation, but tens of thousands of times worse - I should not be liable for the activities of others, except to the extent you can prove that I facilitated the very first unlicensed distribution and that said unlicensed distribution was directly responsible for the entire cascade of further infringement, and that all other copies of the works were suitably protected.

Complete B.S.

Re:Explain this, RIAA

[sumdumass]

I don't think it is a matter of a single CD costing 1.5 mill rather that copying a single CD can cause 1.5 mill in damages.

Think about this very rare and unlikely situation. You have a band that is really good. You pay a manager and producer to make an album and market it. The costs of the studio, marketing, location rentals, film crews for the video's and everything including the manager's and producer's salary while this is going one could reach more then 1.5 million and the manager fronts the costs because your band is that good.

Now lets say that 2 weeks before the official release, someone tells you that you look like this guy from a new band that has a really kick ass song floating around the Internet and it is too hot for radio. You investigate to find 20,000 or more sources for it on one file sharing program alone and people have claimed to have been listening to it for 4 of the 6 months between production and the official release (takes time to shoot awesome videos). The official launch happens, the CDs are in the stores and 2/3rds of everyone showing up to buy it realize before the purchase that it is the same shit they already have. You have effectively sold just enough CD's to pay for the stamping and still need to cover the video production, studio rentals, and everything else. Sure your famous, but your broke.

You can't even go gold and use that to pump or gain free publicity to your kick-ass tour because people aren't buying your album like they would have if the first copy never happened before you officially released the work. Now imagine you someone find that a warehouse worker opened a box of your CD's, listened to it and started the situation as we know it off. Now imagine all the magazines and television programs raving about how great your shit is. Your the greatest sound in music since the egg hatched a chicken that could lay more eggs. But you can't make another album because your working at Dairy Queen part time to pay the first album off.

But yea, that doesn't sound like anything being pushed on us by the recording labels. But I can see extreme cases where because it was copied, someone lost out on 1.5 mill.

Re:Explain this, RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, even if you did torrent it, personally uploading enough bytes of an album to produce 75,000 seeds on your own requires some 70 megabytes 75,000 times over. That's some 5000 gigabytes one would have to upload, all by himself. On a 1 megabit upstream that is constantly pegged, it'd take some 500000 seconds, which is about 2 months.

It's extremely unlikely that a single uploader would upload that much, given that the usual standard is to seed as much as one downloads; for the initial seeder of a torrent swarm this means that he'd have to keep seeding for quite a while longer than 2 months in order to hit that 5000 GiB mark... I know, I've seeded the Freak Brothers comic for like two years now and have only totalled some 20 gigabytes of upload.

So yeah, we're in agreement -- this proposal is utter horseshit. Which anyone could see without proper analysis from a snap judgement based on just who is proposing it, but hey, if the analysis is trivial as this then we can certainly spare a couple minutes' benefit of the doubt...

Re:Explain this, RIAA

[BForrester]

If you continue the analogy, at $1.5M apiece, all CDs on the shelves of major retailers in the US alone have a larger net value than all the money in the world. (That'd be somewhere around the $50T mark).

Re:Explain this, RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Concerningly, I read that second dollar amount in your post as "50 teradollars". I need to get out more.

Absurd lawsuits

[KiwiCanuck]

That's why no one really care aboot the RIAA. Artists will begin to offer their music to the people via the internet. Groups of artist can get together and post songs. Initially, the songs can be free and low quality (128kbs) with web ads paying for the site. Once pop songs are found (via download numbers), then higher quality songs can be sold via an online store. Who needs producer? If you do hire one on a contract, and let him go the minute they are no longer useful. Flame me if I'm wrong! ~:-)

Re:Absurd lawsuits

[Weedlekin]

"That's why no one really care aboot the RIAA"

Politicians care about them, just like they care about everyone who gives lots of money to politicians.

Typical lawyer's wrinkle

[Bearhouse]

From the article:

"The issue is compilations, which now are treated as a single work. In the RIAA's perfect world, each copied track would count as a separate act of infringement, meaning that a copying a ten-song CD even one time could end up costing a defendant $1.5 million if done willfully."

Neat trick, eh? I fail to see the common-sense logic, but I guess that's never stopped the legal-beagles before...

For those posting about changing the business model, (earn money by prosecuting the shit out of your consumers). Yes, but it's probably more to get headlines and increase the imagined "deterrent" effect... Yeah right. Sure worked with the death penalty and murder/serious crime rates, eh?

For those posting about stealing the CDs, well sorry, but the way these desperate dudes are going, pretty soon it'll be illegal to rip those tracks to your Ubuntu box/iPod/whatever anyway. Fair use? Byeeeeeeee... Next up, 2Bn$ fines for those who rip music from stolen CDs!!!! Think of the children!

Re:Typical lawyer's wrinkle

[BlackSnake112]

If the death penalty was ever implemented correctly it could be a deterrent. I.e. If one knowingly, willfully, purposefully murder someone the punishment: they get killed. Does this mean if you kill someone in a car accident will you get the death penalty? Well did you go out looking to kill someone with your car? If so, then yes. The time frame from sentence to execution should be like 3 months at most. People can be on death row for 10+ years. That would should make most people think twice before killing another. For those who do not care, well they are going to kill, be caught then be put to death themselves. For those unable to tell the difference, (the actually people with untreatable mental problems), decisions have to be made. Put them in a place where they cannot harm others (and themselves) for the rest of their lives. Or, for the cold hearted, give them the same punishment as the rest for that crime. Punishment should fit the crime. Life in prison != killing someone.

Re:Typical lawyer's wrinkle

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to think, and structure your phrases logically, before you post.
Especially on such an emotive (if offtopic) subject.

Improving your English would help you to be more convincing.

Note that I am not disagreeing with the main gist of your post.

PRO-IP

[RobBebop]

This is related to the PRO-IP Act (press released on Dev 5, 2007) that is in Congress. Here is who to blame:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX), Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), and Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Ric Keller (R-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property ("PRO IP") Act of 2007"

Here's the "SHOCK AND AWE" value that the industry is using to get people's attention:

It costs the United States between $200 and $250 billion/year in lost sales, including 750,000 jobs.

Obviously, any rational thinking individual knows that 750,000 individuals are not "out on the streets" because piracy has taken away the revenue streams necessary for employing them.

Similarly, *if* $200-250 Billion isn't flowing into the pockets of Imaginary Property companies each year, doesn't that just mean that Americans are free to spend that same money elsewhere? Shouldn't Americans NOT NEED A $150 Billion handout from the government, if they have all this extra money from their copyright infringement?

Something isn't right...

Re:PRO-IP

[gandhi_2]

Man! You just stated what I've been trying to tell people for years!

When someone says "x costs y z dollars per t"...who cares? Sucks to be y. Just means someone didn't have to spend z dollars on y's bullshit. Or n got z dollars.

Sucks to be Y.

Re:PRO-IP

[kidcharles]

Obviously, any rational thinking individual knows that 750,000 individuals are not "out on the streets" because piracy has taken away the revenue streams necessary for employing them. The official statistic for unemployment is around 7.7 million individuals right now. If we are to believe the RIAA, approximately 10% of unemployment for the entire economy of the U.S. is due to music and movie copyright infringement. This is completely absurd.

Re:PRO-IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, any rational thinking individual knows that 750,000 individuals are not "out on the streets" because piracy has taken away the revenue streams necessary for employing them.

Ironically, if piracy was as big a business as the MP/RIAA insisted, then those 750,000 people could just get jobs hawking bootleg discs on street corners instead.

So you're saying...

[Radon360]

Their business model could then become:

1. Get Congress to legislate capital punishment for copyright infringement.
2. Kill off virtually every music fan, lover, enthusiaist, and afficionado that would likely buy their industry's product.
3. ????
4. Profit!

(Sorry, couldn't resist that tired joke.)

Compare that to Cinematic Titanic...

[ProteusQ]

...where Joel & company ask you politely not to share the flick with millions of strangers. Friends and family are no problem.

I can guess what the difference in compliance between the two approaches will be.

or, electricity bill?

[G3ckoG33k]

or?

Increase noise to signal ratio!

[arthurh3535]

This must be another one of those ploys to show how 'desperate' the plight of the Recording Industry is, while aiming to just keep the fines at a higher level. More of that 'if you lie louder, more people will believe you no matter how unbelievable it is.'

Idiots. It needs to be going the other way, where you get a $5 ticket per CD that the offender has illegally downloaded if there is no proof of profiting off the sale of that music.

Comparing the RIAA with bands

[adminstring]

Stories like this only help highlight the differences between musicians and corporate leeches that exploit musicians.

If you live in a city with a local music scene, support your local independent bands, and support the independent bands that come through directly by buying CDs from them. No musician has ever attempted to extort 1.5 million from their audience. There is plenty of great content out there without having to go to the RIAA and their ilk.

Re:Comparing the RIAA with bands

[mgcarley]

No musician has ever attempted to extort 1.5 million from their audience.

You seem to be forgetting about little boy Lars (of Metallica)... These goddamn thieves, I want my 69c!!

By Public Demand

[rinkjustice]

Alright, let's settle this once and for all - a SCO vs RIAA cagematch for most hated entity in the history of Slashdot.

I'm almost starting to believe RIAA is the favorite.

Re:By Public Demand

[Faylone]

Well, of course the RIAA is. SCO is dead, but the RIAA is still troublesome.

Re:By Public Demand

[DeadDecoy]

I guess MSFT falls into more of a love-hate relation with most slashdot users then?

Re:By Public Demand

[Arancaytar]

Cage match sounds nice, but a simultaneous public stoning sounds better.

Re:By Public Demand

[kimvette]

Dunno. This is still on SCO's site:

http://www.sco.com/scosource/

SCOsource Licensing

Many IT users are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX® operating system. Users have come to SCO asking what they can do to continue to run their businesses. SCO has created the SCOsource business division in response to these needs.

SCOsource is a SCO business division that manages its UNIX® System intellectual property and contractual rights. The charter of this division is to create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market and to protect its intellectual property-related assets.

SCO Intellectual Property License Program

To meet customer's needs, SCO has introduced the SCO Intellectual Property (IP) License Program to make binary run time licenses for SCO's intellectual property available to end users. The license gives end users the right to use SCO intellectual property contained in Linux, in binary format only. End users who purchase this license will be covered for their use of SCO's intellectual property in binary format in Linux distributions on the licensed system. The license applies to all commercial users of Linux.

SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates back to 1969, when the UNIX System was created at AT&T's Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System.

Please check the links on the right-hand side of this page. They have been especially selected to help you find the information you might be looking for.

Re:By Public Demand

[CSMatt]

SCO never had a leg to stand on, so they really weren't much of a threat to begin with. On the other hand, the RIAA has the law and the lawmakers on their side, making them a dangerous group.

Re:By Public Demand

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm almost starting to believe RIAA is the favorite."

Sooo, is this the favorite as in more favorable, therefore the RIAA loses?

Or... Favorable [to win] (e.g. most hated)?

Punishment fit the crime?

[bitshark]

Anybody heard of actually suiting punishments to crimes? Technically stealing/downloading/borrowing/pseudonym-du-jour-ing a CD is illegal. Alright, so the recording industry is out somewhere between $10 and $20 US. You'd want to magnify that a touch to make it a suitable punishment (otherwise people would steal and, if they were caught, they'd be basically paying the law for the CD). A factor of 150 thousand? That almost borders on being a joke in poor taste. If it weren't for the fact that the RIAA goes to some pretty absurd and questionably legal means most of the time, I just might laugh.

Re:Punishment fit the crime?

[crabpeople]

"otherwise people would steal"

They are going into the store and taking the physical cd? Or were you talking about copying something illegally which is actually copyright infringement and not stealing in any way.

Using the industries language changes the debate into one that is inherently biased.

Re:Punishment fit the crime?

[dave420]

It's not a punishment, but an attempt to recoup the losses the copyright holder had from someone not paying for their material. I'm not arguing with you - it's retarded. By this logic, the RIAA thinks everyone who downloaded a track seeded it to 150,000 other people, as opposed to the more normal assumption of a share ratio of 1:1.something, 1:2 at best. Gah.

Simple economics, really...

[Jugalator]

I think this is what RIAA needs nowadays to make up for their falling profits due to their failing business model. :-p

It's starting to get urgent over at the RIAA HQ.

Stop Spending Your Money There

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop consuming RIAA music. Don't pay for it. Don't download it. When artists learn that it is suicide (in terms of finances and exposure) to make a pact with the RIAA, they will release music ala Radiohead; make more money and reach more fans.

Start looking for new music here: Creative Commons. When you find something cool, tell your friends. CC music is sharable by definition, so you'll face no problems.

RIAA is a media company. Don't hate the media, BE(come) the media!

Whither Video?

[camperdave]

I personally don't have a large quantity of downloaded music. Most of my downloading is in the form of TV episodes, and movies. What are the video equivalent versions of the RIAA doing to keep up?

Let's negotiate.

[sizzzzlerz]

How about a discount depending upon the popularity or skill of the artist whose album was bootlegged. For example, a Beatles album gets the full 1.5 mil. A John Denver is worth 250K. You come after me for jackin' Zamfir, Master of the Pan Flute and you have to pay me.

RIAA SUX0RZ

[Anonymous Coward]

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
  RIAA wants $1.5 million per goatse viewed

Re:RIAA SUX0RZ

[Anonymous Coward]

O god that ASCII is hilarious.

So much so i just intentally looked at a picture i've managed to avoid for 8 years just to compare.

Re:RIAA SUX0RZ

[Corpuscavernosa]

That goatse post in this context was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on /. I was laughing my ass off to the point that my roommate in the other room asked if I was alright.

It's great to finally see the goatse posting guy get a +5 funny mod.

Stolen idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't we hear this somewhere before?
Oh, yeah... sounds just like Dr. Evil in Austin Powers.
Except from RIAA it sounds ridiculous. Funny? Not so much...

Riptopia

[teslar]

So, first I get an email from Amazon, telling me about their amazing new service called Riptopia. You send in your CDs in multiples of 100, you wait some days, you get the CDs back along with a few DVDs containing high quality rips complete with album art, correctly filled-in tags etc. For about $1 per CD. And my thought was, "well, how curious, I wonder what the RIAA would say to that".

Then I come to /. and it appears the RIAA is saying it wants 1.5 Million dollars per copied CD.

It almost makes me feel like they have a new money-making scheme:

1. Let people copy CDs on Riptopia
2. Get detailed lists of exactly what CDs have been copied for whom from Riptopia
3. Send out the bills
4. Profit!!!

Now, I'm sure I saw a guy handing out tinfoil hats running around here somewhere....

Obviously, the answer is

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun -> List -> Work your way down. The sellout congress can be next...

And I want a toilet made from solid gold

[Gat0r30y]

But somehow I just don't think its gonna happen..... Oh well, a man can dream cant he?

We Love ASCII.cx???!

[Dogtanian]

I was going to point out that this was one time that ASC-se man couldn't legitimately be modded "-1:Offtopic", but in the meantime someone else has +1:Informatived him instead(!)

I have to admit that this is one troll I actually have a soft spot for; the ASCII representation is pretty clever (even down to the use of exclamation mark) and the text for the infamous link always makes some effort at tying itself in with the discussion.

I can't believe I just said all that.

Gotta love the gold standard.

[Tanman]

Come on . . . you know where this joke is headed.

calling filthy rich old guys.

[timmarhy]

What we need is some filthy rich old guy with nothing better to spend his money on, to take up this cause and start paying for some high price lawyers to defend people the RIAA sue.

if i was a multimillionare i'd do it just to see the reaction.

CDs Burn..... in Hell! Muwahahahahahaha!!

[Dogtanian]

Does this mean I can now go kill several people and leave a few burned CD's for their families as compensation and continue with my day? Don't know about that principle in general, but it would certainly be valid if the people you killed worked for the RIAA or their lawyers.

Disclaimer for lawyers and/or fuckwitted and/or humour-impaired readers (*): No, I'm not seriously suggesting this, I just like the ring of poetic justice in it.

(*) "But I repeat myself"... thank you, Mark Twain.

Cue Dr. Evil

[JaBob]

...for ONE MILLION DOLLARS MWUHAHAHAHA... -That's like saying a billion zillion dollars...-

Re:Cue Dr. Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised nobody caught the LASER BEAM involved here too... :-)

If I copy 1000 CDs are they going to try to get 1.5 BILLION dollars out of me?

I call BS!

[night_flyer]

The # of unemployed in the US is 7.7 million (Dec 2007) and the RIAA is saying that 10% of those that are unemployed is because of file sharing?!?

Let em...

[newgalactic]

At this point, I say "Let em...". Seriously, this is getting into that magical area where the economies of scale are beyond my ability to even visualize, let alone pay back in my lifetime. Like trying to visualize the size of Canis Major, angels dancing on the head of a pin, or our national debt (US)..., the thought of paying this back is beyond me. Let's say I get caught sharing 10 albums. That would mean that I owe the RIAA... whatever. It's what my calculus teacher used to refer to as "large".

Go ahead and try to sue me

[Anonymous Coward]

I own ~ 963 cds which I've made flac images from as a backup and then cut each image into respective aac files to upload to my iPod. I've never uploaded a song to anyone and I've never downloaded a song from anyone. I also buy my cds used, from eBay to get a better deal than the ass-rape that is FYE.

So at 1.5 million a pop that comes to a whopping $1,444,500,000 in unrealistic, bullshit damages. Go ahead and try to sue me for that, RIAA. I FUCKING DARE YOU.

Re:Go ahead and try to sue me

[narcc]

Says the Anonymous Coward...

Careful: Don't double dip

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the RIAA would love to double-dip, as it were, but if you upload a file to me (which I'm downloading), that's 1 infringement, not two. So, when doing your accounting, don't count both uploads *and* downloads. Or if you do, count them as 1/2 an infringement each. Which, may be what you are doing since you're coming up with a total value of infrigment which is equal to the album's retail price, but it wasn't exactly clear from your writeup.

Statutory damages for infringment of a registered copyright is 3x actual damages, so you could come up with a figure of $45-60 per total album upload/download. I'm with you guys though - I'm not sure where they get 1.5 Million from.

Re:Careful: Don't double dip

[Jason Levine]

If I understand it correctly, they want the individual songs treated separately. So instead of one album copy being one infringement and thus open to $750 - $150,000 in fines, one album would be 12 infringements (one per song, 12 songs on the average record), and thus a couple million dollars.

Of course, if we were to use their "separate songs" model, then the actual damages would be $1.30 per song (price on iTunes for non-DRMed copy) times 12 times 3 (3x actual damages). This gives the RIAA $46.80. I might even be willing to accept 10x actual damages for sharing a song online (under the assumption that one uploader could be responsible for lots of downloads) and up the "per album" fines to $156.

Of course, they won't really try to get $1.5 million from anyone.... so long as people accept their "generous" $3-4K settlement package, admit to being a dirty, stinking pirate, and keep quiet when the RIAA publicly insults them. If you have the nerve to fight to prove your innocence, though, you're going down. (As far as the RIAA's concerned, that is.)

Re:Careful: Don't double dip

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I know where they got the OLD big numbers & laws. That was the amount they came up with that felt like a big enough stick to go after criminal pirate syndicates. Actual professional factories producing knock off CD's and movies to sell for profit.

It has always amazed me that they would use those numbers against individuals (Better to shoplift the CD than download it) but even crazier to see today a new bigger number!

Re:Careful: Don't double dip

[mgcarley]

See my other comment about how much a new Porsche will cost... though in retrospect, my percentages are probably out. Legal fees are probably far more than 10%.

About the Torrent.

[Anonymous Coward]

"One downside that cannot be ignored is the price of this publication which, at US$ 1,498, places it beyond the reach of most individual scholars. The price reflects, however, the quality and thoroughness of 14 years of research invested in its 5,500 pages. "

What's that about gluttony and weak protections? BTW I'm willing to bet his books will be on Piratebay or Usenet real soon demonstrating people's feelings on the "public good".

Patry's work != seminal

[crankyspice]

Or at least, not "the" seminal work on copyright; that would have to be Nimmer on Copyright (http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/10441.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Nimmer (work carried on by his son, David) ...), cited routinely by courts, including the Supreme Court.

stopgivingthemmoney

[Trogre]

And this, my friends, is why we need to cut off the means these people got to power in the first place, and fast.

Stop buying and endorsing their crap*.

I'm off to Magnatune. I've heard of plenty of other non-evil music publishing sites but can't recall them. I have also recently come to the realisation that I don't actually need to be pummeled with music everywhere I go. I've turned off the radio at work and don't wear headphones much any more. I don't miss it much.

* I realise that not all music produced by RIAA members is crap. A lot of it is quite good - but it's tainted. No RIAA member company is going to get any more of my money. That includes Sony BMG, but not Sony Computer Entertainment, etc. They need to know why their revenues are plummeting.

Re: Punitive Damages

[pugugly]

Can somebody please explain, non-cynically please, why exactly it is that punitive damages in excess of ten time actual damages is cruel and unusual punishment when when I sue a multi-billion dollar company, however no U.S. court has kicked punitive damages to the curb when a company wants *100,000* times the 15$ retail value of a CD?

Do I need to fucking incorporate myself under the law to be protected by the constitution now?

Pugugly inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Pugugly holdings, LLC.

Money to make

[superswede]

I just recorded my first CD. Working on the 2nd one. I should be a billionaire in no time.

I think the RIAA and others are all wrong

[slriv]

I think the RIAA and distributors have approached the problem all wrong, and let me run this by people for their thoughts.

All recorded music should be free of copyright and freely available and copyable. Recorded music is not unlike a GMC truck commercial. The objective is to draw people's interest into the product, which in the case of music is the performance, which is today definitely profitable. The actual song composition, words etc are clearly restricted, but the recording itself is an advertisement for the musician/composer. The sale of CDs should continue, but the content on those CDs should be free of any DRM or restrictions of use.

Simply put, a band is only as good as their performance. It is true there are musicians who stick to the studio only and potentially some forms of music that just don't play well to an audience (although, I would love to see some of Eno's early work live in a dark room etc), however if musicians were paid for their performance instead of their skill with a recording device, bands like Nightranger would never had made a penny (they sucked, btw in concert the times I saw them, YMMV).

I recently read an interesting speech my cousin sent to me yesterday by Paul McGuinness.

http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=2196

It's this kind of thinking you are facing from the RIAA. We are the criminals and there is no compromise.

Re:I think the RIAA and others are all wrong

[acroyear]

which in the case of music is the performance, which is today definitely profitable

I think you're quite deluded on this.

Robert Fripp's label DGMLive (which he is an executive of), had to shell out $5,000 as the final bill to settle the debts that incurred for the League of Crafty Guitarists tour of the United States last year. No King Crimson tour has ever been "profitable", no matter how large or small the venue. Most artists pay for the privilege of playing, with cd sales (and t-shirt sales) being their only operating income to sustain them while they continue to compose and plan subsequent performances.

Fripp: In 2003 the costs of KC for 6 weeks in Europe was c. $1.2 million (given the slide in the $, today that's c. $1.6 million). The work was gruelling, the drives exhausting (Moscow > Riga 20 hours - bump, bump, bump, fucking bump), the audiences & performances (to me) unsatisfying. The musicians were each paid $10,000, or $1,666 a week.

Would you consider $1,666 per week to be profitable? If you could work it all 52 weeks, you'd be making $86K.

But the reality is that for those 6 weeks, two weeks was needed to rehearse, a week needed to sign contracts and settle affairs at home, about 3 weeks on either side where you couldn't perform with anybody else because your head wasn't into the other music (so you'd need rehearsal time there), so now we're looking at $10,000 for 15 weeks, or a mere $667 per week. School teachers get paid more (or should). And that's for not being home for that entire 6 weeks.

Touring is intensely exhausting and is a significant contributor to breakups and divorces among musicians.

Even if you don't tour but work nights locally when you can, it's hardly a living wage. Most bands here in the DC area, no matter how popular, still only get about 12-15 bookings a year, which amounts to about $200/night * 15 shows or a mere $3,000: can you live off of that for a year?

Re:I think the RIAA and others are all wrong

[un1xl0ser]

I can't really agree with you there. A lot of the bands that I listen to (the IDM scene), I will never see in concert. They rarely tour, and it is mostly in Europe anyways.

It is the artists choice as to how they want to make money. If they want to sell CDs for cheap and tour, so be it. If they want to sell their CDs for $1,000 and never tour, they are welcome to. They should be in control of the product that they want to offer. If they choose to screw around with my unwritten contract with them, and offer services that I can't afford or do not want, they don't get my money and support. If they want to use DRM, they won't get my support. If they care that I got a copy of the album from a friend before I purchased it, I will lose a lot of respect for them and they won't get my

My problem with the big labels and RIAA is that they assert too much control over the artists for my taste.

Not $600

[c6gunner]

Totally off-topic, but since you decided to fudge some stats, I may as well respond: the maximum payout is not set at $600 but at $2,500. Larger amounts COULD be paid out...but my general experience has been that any time you start compensating locals for large amounts, they go out of their way to try and suck money out of you. When we were doing "peacekeeping" in Bosnia, there was a fairly large payout for pretty much everything from property damage caused by raids to vehicle damage caused in accidents. As a result, locals would often damage their own property in order to try and claim "compensation". They'd even go so far as to intentionally cause a head-on collision between a honda-civic sized shitbox and an armoured personnel carrier, which, unsurprisingly, most often lead to the death of the driver.

These things often seem like really great ideas to people sitting on their asses in North America, banging away at a computer keyboard, but in real life they don't work nearly as well. For instance, I can't count how many times some clown on an internet forum has suggested we offer a cash incentive for people to turn in explosives. Of course, the real world result of that would be a lot of civilians being killed while trying to bring in unstable ordinance. Or the suggestions that we pay people to turn in weapons - usually the only result is villagers selling us their WW1 era muskets, and then using the money to buy AK47's.

So, long story short, paying out large amounts for "wrongful deaths" is a bad idea. The cash currently paid out isn't meant to replace the person who was killed, and it's certainly not an admission of culpability or responsibility. It's just a gesture to say "we're sorry this had to happen to you, here's something to help you get back on your feet".

Re:Not $600

[Anonymous Coward]

At the same time, if a US soldier kills anyone (even with wrongful intentions) he/she is automatically granted immunity from the local courts, shipped back home and unless sh*t really hits the fan... that's it. I read once a story about a father of a killed local, who was willing to go to a trial of his sons killer / sue the guy (that was quite a while ago). Guess what. He didn't even manage to get a US visa.

Re:Not $600

[shiftless]

I agree, I've seen the same thing in Afghanistan. And about the $2,500, let's not also forget that $2,500 is a fucking SHITLOAD of money when you're an Iraqi or Afghan.

Re:Not $600

[syousef]

When we were doing "peacekeeping" in Bosnia, there was a fairly large payout for pretty much everything from property damage caused by raids to vehicle damage caused in accidents. As a result, locals would often damage their own property in order to try and claim "compensation". They'd even go so far as to intentionally cause a head-on collision between a honda-civic sized shitbox and an armoured personnel carrier, which, unsurprisingly, most often lead to the death of the driver.

Isn't paying out large settlements to record companies for copyright infringement similarly a bad idea, and for similar reasons? Pretty soon they're not interested in making/distributing/promoting music as much as they are interested in suing people for copyright infringement whether or not it actually occurred.

Re:Not $600

[c6gunner]

Isn't paying out large settlements to record companies for copyright infringement similarly a bad idea, and for similar reasons?

More or less. It's deffinitely a bad idea to allow them to claim such ludicrous amounts as "damages", but for a different reason. There has to be some element of rationality to all human interactions, especially when it comes to the legal system. We don't execute people for spitting on the sidewalk, so why would we fine someone $1.5 million for stealing a $15 CD?

Realistically, the companies themselves know that they have no hope of recovering these types of fines from the average pirate. Even today, most cases are settled out of court, with the "offender" paying a much lower fine than the current maximums allow. For this reason, I think your fear that "pretty soon they're not interested in making/distributing/promoting music as much as they are interested in suing people" is not realistic. Frankly, I can't even see any reason why the companies would want to lobby for increased fines, since they're not likely to see an increase in payouts as a result. They're wasting their time and money on an irrational measure which will be of no benefit to anyone.

Re:Not $600

[stor]

I agree, I've seen the same thing in Afghanistan. And about the $2,500, let's not also forget that $2,500 is a fucking SHITLOAD of money when you're an Iraqi or Afghan. *blinks*

OK, so I'll come to your country, kill your mother and give you, say, $10,000. That ought to be a "fucking SHITLOAD" of compensation: four times what you'd get if you were an Iraqi.

-Stor

Re:Not $600

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly what we are talking about. Any time you start compensating recording companies for large amounts, they go out of their way to try and suck money out of you. Record companies would often damage their own property by putting in DRM that won't let their paying customers what they paid for, in order to try and claim "compensation" for the sales lost that way, because it is much easier to make money in courts than it in the market. So, long story short, paying out large amounts for "wrongful copying" is a bad idea.

Re:Not $600

[syousef]

I think you're wrong. It's easier to settle out of court for somewhere between $2000 - $6000 than selling that same person between 133 and 400 full price albums. There's definitely motivation there to stop selling and start suing.

Re:Not $600

[shiftless]

OK, so I'll come to your country, kill your mother and give you, say, $10,000. That ought to be a "fucking SHITLOAD" of compensation: four times what you'd get if you were an Iraqi.

Yet another armchair commentary by somebody who's never been there, never done that, just sat on his ass at home criticizing. I don't know much about what's going on in Iraq (and neither do you, BTW) but frankly you don't know what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to Afghanistan:

a) New bridges, schools, libraries, roads, and other infrastructure are going up on a daily and widespread basis, all across the country. Many Afghans also now have jobs thanks to coalition forces. The Afghans are very happy about these developments. They may be poor but they desperately want to educate their children, improve their country, and better themselves. The US and coalition forces are generally WELCOME in their country.

b) In certain parts of the country, the Taliban--which MOST Afghans despise--stage attacks on US and coalition forces, and sometimes civilians get caught up in the crossfire and are killed. We often compensate the victims' families even if the death wasn't our fault or anything we really could have prevented, as a gesture of goodwill.

c) No, Afghans are not happy when their loved ones get killed, but they ARE happy when they receive that fat $2,500 compensation. Let me put this in perspective for you. You live in a mud hut out in the middle of nowhere, Afghanistan, amongst hundreds of other mud huts in your village. You have no running water, electricity, not much food, and maybe enough firewood to keep somewhat warm in the harsh, cold winter. You have a job (if you're lucky) which pays about [b]$400/year[/b].

Now let's say missile lands on a truck, which was carrying 10 Taliban who have been using your village as a staging area for attacks on a nearby US base, and blows it to bits. In the ensuing explosion one of your 8 sons or 5 daughters is struck by debris and killed. Well, that sucks, but it doesn't suck THAT bad. Kids die all the time from lack of medical care, injuries (can't just drive to a hospital you know), etc., so it's not really anything you're not used to. But you just got paid enough cash to equal [b]6 years'[/b] of salary. Holy shit, you just hit the jackpot. With this money you can really improve the standard of living for the rest of your family.

That may not be how YOU see it, from your warm, comfortable home in suburban America (or wherever else you may be in the FIRST WORLD), but that's how THEY see it, and frankly it's their opinion that matters, not yours.

Re:Not $600

[Anonymous Coward]

here's an idea: STAY OUT OF THEIR FUCKlN COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE MESS YOU MAKE.

captcha supplied appropriate: Bitches!

Putting Themselves Out Of Business

[Twitchie]

Since 6/10 songs on a CD are crap anymore anyhow, I can't see anyone seriously buying CDs anymore. Spend $4 to download them from iTunes and have the good songs. What genius decided it was good to sue every one of your customers with every loophole in the law? These record company execs must be very guilable to let the RIAA lawyers keep talking them into funding their org. Seriously, who buys CDs anymore? LOL Next, the RIAA will sue to make Americans purchase a minimum of 10 CDs per year. Hahahaha. Pathetic.

Re:Putting Themselves Out Of Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 6/10 songs on a CD are crap anymore anyhow, I can't see anyone seriously buying CDs anymore. Maybe you should just stop listening to such shitty bands.

This just in....

[eyeota]

People in hell *want* ice water..... but I wouldn't get hopes up if I were them.

Smoking something GOOD!

[Nonillion]

Just when I thought the RIAA couldn't get anymore retarded they come up with this insane demand. Listen, RIAA, GO FUCK YOURSELF! Whether I record or rip a CD is none of your fucking business, I am simply exercising my FAIR USE RIGHTS. I am not selling copies or even giving your shit away, I am doing so for my personal use. And while your at it, please pass the pipe. Because what you're smoking has got to be some good shit.

cost analysis

[xPsi]

$1.5M/CD? Hey, its only about $0.00027/bit. After a couple bucks, you might even recognize the data stream as music!

Re:cost analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Sshhhh! Or they'll decide to count each bit as a separate violation. That'll be one quadrillion dollars please.

Re:cost analysis

[noidentity]

$1.5M/CD? Hey, its only about $0.00027/bit. After a couple bucks, you might even recognize the data stream as music!

So that's why they hate mp3s; all that compression robs them of 9x the profit, so they only get $150,000 per CD.

In euros that is...

[MavEtJu]

1.5 million US dollars... That will be 75 Euros.

Re:In euros that is...

[mgcarley]

Or about £45.

Hell, even the Georgian Lari has more buying power than the USD at the moment.

Used CD's

[tt42]

So what is the legality of ripping tracks from CD's that you legally purchased at a second-hand store? What about file-sharing those tracks? Wouldn't that be money the RIAA/artists were never going to get anyway?

The irony of all this is that...

[MrKaos]

They are brokers for someone else's rights that they don't want to pay for.

Thank god I live in Canada...

[BigDaddyOttawa]

I'd be in for about $1,234,500,000, give or take a few mil. (according to iTunes, I've got 823 albums in my library)

PRO-"Pick my side!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Obviously, any rational thinking individual knows that 750,000 individuals are not "out on the streets" because piracy has taken away the revenue streams necessary for employing them."

And why wouldn't they? Because someone on slashdot told them not to? Far as I can see neither side has proven anything, pro or con. It's all rhetoric to push a particular sides agenda, truth be damned.

"Similarly, *if* $200-250 Billion isn't flowing into the pockets of Imaginary Property companies each year, doesn't that just mean that Americans are free to spend that same money elsewhere?"

Having money is one thing. Spending it is quite another. Although your assumption does fly in the face of the "I'm just a poor student" argument.

"Something isn't right..."

The fact that the IP debate resembles the abortion debate in that both sides think their right and the other sides wrong and that's that.

Re:PRO-"Pick my side!"

[RobBebop]

The fact that the IP debate resembles the abortion debate in that both sides think their right and the other sides wrong and that's that.

Abortion?!?!? You just EXTENDED the bounds of a good old-fashioned argument-ending Internet "Godwin attack". All those crazy kids with their Pro-Choice/Pro-Sharing agenda will be proud. Not only are will they willingly download the latest Justin Timberlake album, but they will do it using their Buy-One/Get-One OX Laptop (because they are humanitarians, too!) on a wireless network at the abortion clinic. Superb!

Man... it is a shame that you are AC and can't take credit for your accomplishment of using Abortion to Godwin an argument.

Dear RIAA

[Skeetskeetskeet]

Thank you for imposing this fine on consumers who think they can copy music and get away with it. The fine for the individual who copied the one CD I ever sold will enable me to relaunch my music career. Sincerely, Vanilla Ice.

Just a nit pic,

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the distribution that's illegal.
No case of a recipient that wasn't ALSO distributing has ever been tried because if you read the copyright law it's ALL about distribution. As it should be.
I am speaking from the US. For outside the US you will need to speak to a lawyer the specializes in copyright.

Do NOT just go to any lawyer, you must get the opinion of specialists. No lawyer knows all the law and court cases from everything.

I am a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

Re:Just a nit pic,

[Anonymous Coward]

It could certainly be argued that downloading violates the exclusive right to reproduce.

Re:Just a nit pic,

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I'm a lawyer who specializes in US copyright, and you're wrong. Copyright deals with distribution, but it also deals with several other rights, including reproduction, which is what a downloader does. There's really no argument that downloaders are not infringers. But they're smaller fish and harder to find than uploaders are (who are in turn smaller than certain developers, e.g. Napster, Grokster, or service providers), which means that since RIAA, MPAA et al like to get the most bang for their buck and have limited resources, they prefer to target uploaders over downloaders. They could sue downloaders, it's just inefficient, so they don't.

If you'd like to read the relevant part of the US law, it is at 17 USC 106.

Re:Just a nit pic,

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Well, I'm a lawyer who specializes in US copyright, and you're wrong. Copyright deals with distribution, but it also deals with several other rights, including reproduction, which is what a downloader does. There's really no argument that downloaders are not infringers. But they're smaller fish and harder to find than uploaders are (who are in turn smaller than certain developers, e.g. Napster, Grokster, or service providers), which means that since RIAA, MPAA et al like to get the most bang for their buck and have limited resources, they prefer to target uploaders over downloaders. They could sue downloaders, it's just inefficient, so they don't.

If you'd like to read the relevant part of the US law, it is at 17 USC 106. I'd like to point out a significant technical/legal quibble. AFAIK, there are only two ways that they *could* prove "unlawful downloading". First, if the file in question was downloaded from a server under their control. Second, if they control a machine along the route between you and the server, and are sniffing packets.

The first possibility opens a serious can of worms for them. As I understand it, the rights holder can *not* sue you if you're downloading the file from an authorized agent of the rights holder. If Safenet (or whoever is doing the dirty work) *is* deemed an authorized agent, then you get a free pass. And if not, then I think "unclean hands" would come into play (it would be as close to "entrapment" as is possible in a civil case).

The second possibility is pretty nasty as well, since they'd be unlawfully tapping into the communications stream in order to sniff the packets (AFAIK, only law enforcement can obtain a wiretap warrant), which would also bring up the "unclean hands" issue.

So, yes, they *do* have the right to sue the downloaders, but it isn't just "inefficient" to do so - there are some substantial substantial issues that makes it impossible (under current law) for them to *prove* such infringement without running head on into "unclean hands".

(IANAL, but you are, so please correct me if my layman's understanding of the law is incorrect...)

Re:Just a nit pic,

[cpt kangarooski]

I'd like to point out a significant technical/legal quibble. AFAIK, there are only two ways that they *could* prove "unlawful downloading".

Oh, there are other ways it could be done. A convenient one would involve finding someone who was caught for uploading but turned out to be easier to sue for downloading once it was determined that he had mainly done that. After all, you don't have to sue someone for every kind of infringement they engage in. Or they could just've admitted it, or been turned in by someone else, or shown up prominently in logs that the plaintiff managed to acquire from someone else (e.g. a torrent site).

You're right, though; it's usually pointless from a tactical perspective to sue mere downloaders (there are better people to sue first), and impractical as well. Most cases involving mere downloaders usually involve the downloaders as direct infringers upon whom secondary liability for someone else is hung. E.g. Napster was liable for helping downloaders to infringe, which required that downloading be infringing to begin with.

If wishes were horses...

[Chysn]

...we'd all be eating steak.

This doesn't seem to be about the money. Make it $250,000 per CD, or make it $50 million. What they want the power to do is destroy someone forever. One CD means you lose your house, your family, your future. One CD indentures you to them with no hope of retiring. They're asking for $1.5 million because they know that asking for lethal injection is a tad over the top.

Re:If wishes were horses...

[Anonymous Coward]

If RIAA had more real power what would stop them doing lethal injections?

Yeah, what about the artists?

[JonTurner]

So, when this extortion racket, uh, I mean "organization" successfully sues someone or they settle out of court... how much of that money goes back to the artists they supposedly represent? Has any artist received a dividend cheque?

Colour me skeptical.

Re:Yeah, what about the artists?

[speculatrix]

extortion racket... successfully sues someone...that money goes back to the artists?... any artist received a cheque? RIAA is the recording industry's association, not the artists' association... so, no, they don't damn about the artists so long as they produce some sort of sound that the record companies can turn into product sales.

I owe RIAA more money than can be defined.

[liftphreaker]

Oh shit! The amount I owe the RIAA has so many zeroes I don't even know what the heck such a huge number is called, or whether it exists in this space-time reality at all.

I wonder..

[shiftless]

...will they take a check?

Time to pray to Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

Pray to Jesus these guys get the cleansing cancer.

Everybody! Let's join hands....

"Dear Jesus, let these people die in horrible, epic cancer that wipes them out, their family out, and anybody who does business with them. In thigh name we prey. Amen".

If enough people do that... it could work.

Well, yes, we do.

[tkrotchko]

"We don't say to burglars, "that's OK, just give the stuff back and we're square""

Actually, we sort of do. If you are a first time offender, you'll get probation and you have to give the stuff back. If you don't have it, you have to pay them the value of what you stole.

So you're better off breaking into the homes of people to steal CD's. At worst, you have to give back the CD.

Think about that... some guy shares some files, and it's worse for him than had he smashed the window of the local Fye and stole a handful of CD's.

Re:Well, yes, we do.

[totally bogus dude]

That's because smashing windows and stealing physical items isn't considered socially acceptable behaviour, so very few people do it. Just like internet file sharing was ignored for a long time before Napster made it cool.

That's why the RIAA is kicking up such a fuss: they want to make copying stuff for your friends and strangers socially unacceptable. They haven't quite grasped the fact that most members of society don't really give a rats ass about corporate profits, but do get upset when people they know (or even strangers who seem kind of like people they know) are getting sued into oblivion.

Of course, laws aren't created and enforced by "most members of society", so the majority viewpoint is pretty much moot.

Re:Well, yes, we do.

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Wow, that's a great idea! I've been breaking in to houses, ripping the CD collections to my laptop, then leaving. Your way is cheaper if I ever get caught, and I'll save a lot of time, too!

Funny Thing About Wanting...

[flyneye]

I would stand up and loudly declare to their faces,what my old granddad used to say when I wanted something more than reasonable:"Why don't you sh*t in one hand and want in the other and see which hand fills up first." ;)

Well, I'm screwed then...

[UttBuggly]

Hmmm....past 50 and still the proud owner of some 500 pieces of classic vinyl having and many more CDs.

I have many records...the original quadraphonic recording of Dark Side Of The Moon, for instance...that have been played ONCE. And that was to RECORD THEM to a more durable, portable media so I could enjoy the music as much as I wanted without damaging the original album.

Sure, vinyl isn't a CD. Doubt if the RIAA makes a distinction. And considering I have some excellent gear, and that I'm a professional musician with lots of studio time, and so on, many of my "copies" sound better than the CD version.

Of course, silly me...I assumed that when I bought an album...Led Zepplin IV...it was mine. Should I be penalized, brought to penury, and vilified simply because I've outlived some technology? If I could still get a sealed, cherry vinyl record album, I'd still buy them. That's not the case, so I feel well within my rights to record an irreplaceable piece of music every decade or so to the latest storage medium.

So, by my calculations, I can apparently offset the National Debt all by myself simply because I have old records.

Brilliant.

Re:Well, I'm screwed then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree. By my calculations of the amount of CD's I legally own, I could likely fund a third world country's government budget and still have some left over. That is just brilliant if I do say so. So the several thousand plus dollars I've spent on buying my collection of CD's, is basically what rent money? I thought I owned something when I bought it, I guess not anymore. This is why the RIAA tries to get so much money, they waste too much of it in the first place, paying people probably 6 figures to come up with this rediculous garbage. Honestly I don't know if anyone else agrees with me, but I think more than filesharing or anything else, the RIAA itself is going to be the downfall of the music industry. Another thing, I know its been frequently by the RIAA and at other places/times, that filesharing is the reason why the music industry is failing and why its losing so much money. Although filesharing might not be helping the situation, I strongly disagree it is the main reason for it. So how do you fix the problem of filesharing and make everyone happy? Honestly I don't know, how you would fix that problem. I prevent the problem for myself by not illegally downloading songs. I spend some time in a music store every now and then, listen to new cds to get a feel for what they are and then purchase the cd or not. I'm sorry there are too many expenses and worries in life to add a couple more by illegally getting music. Plus I have morals and stealing is against them all.

At any rate I think the problem rests on the issue of how flooded the music industry is now. By that I mean, how many artists there are out there. Its not like it used to be, in the earlier 20th century. I can't keep up with the amount of different artists there are. My collection alone doesn't scratch the surface of what is out there. Also even though its a subjective statement, although I'm sure many will agree, there are more artists out there now, that don't make quality music by any standards in any of the genres (although mainly Hip-Hop/Pop/Rap). Before anyone says it I do listen to all different types of music, I'm not just focused on one genre. However, more frequently than not lately I will listen to a free tracks of newer cd's and won't buy it. Well anyways it's a long post but its just my 2 cents on this topic.

foil linings in coats....

[Joce640k]

Even simpler than a briefcase. Get one of those military jackets with the carrier-bag size pockets and a roll of tinfoil. Good to go.

Next year, the RIAA will want:

[Anonymous Coward]

- Two central Asian republics for each CD
- One US Treasury per DVD
- 0.1 Micro$oft per hard drive.

At this rate the RIAA will be owed the entire contents of the solar system (including the Kuiper belt.)

Re:It's not high enough

[symbolic]

Why are they shooting so low? $1.5 billion sounds more reasonable.

Heh

[einhverfr]

Of course the statistics are BS. The way they are calculated is "if everyone purchased these songs instead of copying them, there would be 750000 more jobs" which is *not* the same as "750000 jobs were lost because of copyright infringement" because of two issues:

1) It is one heck of a leap to suggest that if there was no internet that so many more CD's and singles would be purchased.
2) I seriously doubt that those numbers of job inflation are accurate anyway (that is roughly 10-20 times the number of employees at Microsoft).

However, at the same time, the fact is that copyright infringement remains a "crime against the free market" (not inluding anti-free-market controls such as access control under the DMCA). The basic problem is that copyright infringement denies a market place to newer artists who may be more willing to try other models of music distribution in the same way that copyright infringement of Windows denies Linux market share. I personally think that the damage done to our society by this illegal copying is immeasurable, and that the primary *beneficiaries* are the major record lables.

So if you want to *help* the RIAA, go ahead and keep downloading those songs without permission. If you want to *hurt* them, start working with artists to build an alternative music production and distribution system which works for them.

Shoplifting

[wiredlogic]

How apropos. And the fine for shoplifting the same album will remain somewhat less than $1000 of course. Weren't we supposed to have a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in our constitution. There nothing American about subjecting people to a life of penury because of a petty crime. That is one of the reasons why we revolted on the British. This is also a reason why the second amendment was installed.

pre-goatse times!

[freaker_TuC]

I think this was the guy before he became famous, his behind is a lot smaller. It's all in the details!

RIAAA

[gorba]

Ripping Individual American's Another Ass

I want...

[Chewbacon]

...$1.5 million per violation of consumer rights.

Re:I want...

[Karem Lore]

Not enough. If they get $1.5 million per CD, you can bet you bottom dollar that each infringer will be liable for at least 20-100 albums. Ergo the return for the RIAA for breaching consumer rights should be at least (max albums held by infringer) * $1.5 million. 100 (low estimate) * 1.5 = $150 million per civil infringement, straight to the little man, who then, hopefully, uses it to help others fight the RIAA (yes, I know, not likely) and can actually afford the inflated prices of albums now.

But lets not get off track here...Where in the hell is a little guy going to get $1.5 million? This is just outrageous. This is ruining your life for life stakes that even a minor can get embroiled in...RIAA should be shut down, dismantled and all its funds given to charity. Record labels should be told to do their own dirty work (after all, we blame RIAA, but who bank rolls them?) and artists to return to what being an artist really means...

Karem

For European Slashdotters:

[Jesus_666]

1.500.000 USD amount to about 7.53 EUR. Apparently the RIAA is modelling the damages after the European market.

If it's on the radio, it's free

[micahfk]

As far as I'm concerned, if they put it on the radio, then the song is worth exactly $0 and is constitutionally not for the RIAA to sue anyone in court (less than $20).

Trying to stop the recession

[Nethemas the Great]

It costs the United States between $200 and $250 billion/year in lost sales, including 750,000 jobs.

I've got it! The RIAA are such noble geniuses... they're trying to stop the US economic recession and create full employment with a single piece of legislation!

I am all in favor of this law!

[517714]

No, I am not being faceteous. As I understand it, the requirement for copyright is the the copyright notice appears on the item. Since the industry only puts the copyright on the CD once, it is clear that the copyright can only apply to one item - up to now we assumed it was the album/CD collectively, but now we must assume must be the artwork on the disc. All those individual tracks out there without proper copyrights, I guess I'll get to start downloading instead of buying my music.

Technically, a great deal of copyrights are invalid since a copyright is from the date of performance, not the issuance of the album/CD/DVD and by placing the wrong date on the item, the copyright is forfeit due to the false claim.

alright

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, to that arrogant prick in the record store the other. Yeah, you may be able to talk about your music collection worth somewhere in the tens of thousands, but now I can talk about my collection being worth hundreds of millions!

A reading list.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well obviously I'm late to the shoutfest so rather than another "me too". How about some reading material for the next time?

Managing Intellectual Assets in the Digital Age

Information Ethics: Privacy and Intellectual Property

Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice

Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice

Intellectual Capital for Communities: Nations, Regions, and Cities

Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference

I doubt anyone will read any of the above let alone take to heart but at least no one can claim no one tried to educate them.

Nimmer On Copyrights Not Patry

[tony1343]

The most well-known treatise on Copyright Law in the United States is Nimmer on Copyright. However, in the law field there are two major electronic research sites that compete vigorously with each other, Westlaw and LexisNexis. Recently Westlaw lost the ability to post Nimmer on its service. It therefore commissioned Patry, a wellknown Copyright attorney, to write his treatise, Patry on Copyright.

So I just didn't want everyone to go over board on the "seminal" treatise on copyright, though I believe he is very well-respected. Also, these are obviously not books for the average slashdot reader to use, but used as starting point for lawyers when conducting legal research on copyright.

Legal practitioners would not usually cite a treatise (because they are not a primary source of law); however judges can and do (they can do whatever they want essentially). Just to illustrate a point, a search of all federal cases in Westlaw (which publishes Patry) shows Patry only being cited in 18 cases. Nimmer comes up 2,144 times. Obviously Patry is brand new, so 18 times is actually impressive, but only time will tell if its popularity and importance will match Nimmer. I am guessing that it will soon be considered just as authorative, since West is very huge and now many people will only have access to it (since many smaller firms only buy one package and not both).

Must to read..

[tuomoks]

For us ./:ters - read this. http://www.oreillynet.com/wateringhole/blog/ - I'm not advertising but it is the most hilarious for anyone in software business! Really, I'm not a coder (any more) but this hits it!

Re: Just Rewards

[TaoPhoenix]

They could be tied to a chair and forced to listen to "Veggie Veggie Fruit Fruit" from the 1983 inaugural EPCOT Disney tape.

right...

[CaptainNerdCave]

it's hard to do anything politically productive when much of the population is busy looking at porn, watching jack-ass, playing halo and, to stay on topic, pirating music

Or they meant ZWD

[aepervius]

ZWD=Zimbabwe Dollar. Last time I checked 250.000ZWD=1=1.2$ so that would come to roughly 8$ fine per copied CD. Sound right. After all if you copy the CD once, it can only be argued you made them lose the sale once. And if somebody copy the copy then it is their fault and responsability, not yours, and they have to pay their own 8$ fine. Sorry, 1,500,000 ZWD.

the mob says no

[__aalwyc6372]

hey, riaa guys... how about nothing, nada? instead, we burn you all on a stake?

-- the mighty mob

uff..

[humblesatan]

Location: Central prison
(Conversation among 3 cellmates)

CM1: Why you here man?
CM2: I killed 21 people.
CM3: I was a terrorist.
CM2: and you?
CM1: I ripped a CD and mailed one MP3 to my girlfriend. ...dead silence..

Lets bankrupt RIAA

[thorkyl]

On Feb 20 2008 lets all go file a small claims action against RIAA.

Cause of action will to allow us to copy a 10 year old audio tape for backup purposes.

Does not matter if we win or loose.

Sue for $20.00 USD plus costs (about $35 USD filing and $85 for process server)

If we get 100,000 suits filed it will cost them at minimum $140.00 per case they fail to show at
that would be 14 mil. They don't have enough lawyers to defend 100,000 cases in one month

Then we do it again in 6 months.
No more RIAA

Fine for running a red light?

[jmb_no]

How much would you typically pay in the US to run a red light or drive the wrong way on the motorway, something that actually endangers lives?

Re:Fine for running a red light?

[thorkyl]

$55 to $250

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

[Richard Kirk]

Only $1.5 million? Are you sure?

The Society for Patent Enforcement, Copyright, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion was expecting a considerably larger figure...

(strokes cat)

Goodbye, Mister Bond.

Stupid

[goodspeed1]

Somehow the RIAA gets stupider by the day. Didn't you get the memo... digital music is going to be FREE

Re:$1.5 million? so wrong so true

[hesaigo999ca]

This is whats wrong with the music industry today, they say it costs this much , and that much and we need to pay this and that, and we can only give the artist this. But what about the snoop dogs out there tired of listening to the BS that build their own studios in their basement for 500k then record as much as they want, and the radioheads that have no advertising, excep to announce that whatever you want to pay for our song, just log on and pay and download. Thats advertising , free of course...

Were they given only 1% of the sales revenue. no! The music bus is so wrong...who decide the artist can only get 1%, who decides this cd is worth 14,95 when the other is worth 12,95 and they both had the same amount invested in them. It makes me sad, as the big companies decided what the prices are then cry when they don't get their 'fair' share.

All I can say is let this be a lesson to them, as for the RIAA, they are so desperate for any kind of real win, the are doing SCO all over again. They need to try to get that win to be able to go SEE someone thinks like us, I hope they get laughed out of court. Seriously , I hope the judge is
someone like Judge Judy!

You may win the award for worst software/year

[the computer guy nex]

(By the way, one of the Democratic Senators the computer placed into the Republican party was Hillary Clinton.)
She is so far left wing it makes many democrats cry.

Re:You may win the award for worst software/year

[cromar]

Tipper Go... I mean Hillary Clinton is not very liberal, really. I mean, for one, she's pro censorship. Besides health care, she's pretty conservative.

Riding the gravy train

[sm62704]

Come in here, Dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far,
You're gonna fly high,
You're never gonna die,
You're gonna make it, if you try;
They're gonna love you.
Well I've always had a deep respect,
And I mean that most sincerely.
The band is just fantastic,
that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?

And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

We're just knocked out.
We heard about the sell out.
You gotta get an album out.
You owe it to the people.
We're so happy we can hardly count.
Everybody else is just green,
Have you seen the chart?
It's a hell of a start,
It could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team.

And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

-Pink Floyd

(Shine on, you crazy diamond!)

(emphasis by mcgrew)

$1.5m, is that all?

[jjm496]

I wonder if they'd like a side of Debtors Prison with that. You know, just a nice way to ensure they can collect for each cd by enslaving you and your family for generations.

I finally understood it

[ProteusQ]

In America, we prosecute the drug user rather than the dealer, because the dealers can afford good lawyers.

We prosecute the illegal immigrant rather than recognize that what's happening is an economic migration caused by an excessively high minimum wage in the US and a corrupt Mexican government.

We consider criminal prosecution of file traders rather than notice that the **AA are attempting to support price gouging in an effort to capitalism with mercantilism.

It's time to bite the bullet, as the saying goes, and start fixing the real problems.

Re:I finally understood it

[eleven357]

Wow, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

They Dare to Dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it refreshing that there's still some people who lack the cynicism that is so ubiquitous in our modern world, and truly reach for the stars? With their doe-eyed naivety, their innocent yearnings and pure hearts, how could they ask for anything but $1.5M per CD copied? Their idealism is commendable. If they succeed, it's proof that it's not too late! For any of us!

In the RIAA's defense

[elrous0]

Bribing Congressmen doesn't come cheap. They have to make it back SOMEWAY.

Decision trees?

[Xenographic]

You should publish that data somewhere. It would be interesting to see who owns whom in congress...

Uh oh

[rrohbeck]

You just performed the lyrics of a well known Stones tune in public.

Do you have a license agreement? I suppose not. Better get a lawyer...

Re:Uh oh

[MacWiz]

I just announced the title. It was that other guy singing...

Its already up to $150,000 each song

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn, the RIAA already claims they can get up to $150,000 per song, so I don't see whats differant here.

To put this in perspective...

[dbodner]

The family of Ronald Goldman was awarded $8.5 million [cnn.com]. Does this mean Ronald Goldman's life is worth less than 6 CD's? When will the RIAA realize that their tactics (along with stale "talent") are what's preventing consumers from purchasing, not file sharing? I know myself I'm done buying from Sony, EMI, Virgin, and others who head up the association. Local artists and indies for me.

Indeed...

[Svartalf]

While you posted Anon, I wish I still had mod points to mod the comment you just made up. You summarized it very well.

In the end, each and every person participating in their economic ecosystem is contributing and funding this sort of insanity
either through direct funding through purchases or through network effect from the people trading it illicitly.

Just say "no" just like they tell you to do with drugs- for it's little better, really.

I've found that there's a lot better batch of people making their music available solely
through places for free like Creative Commons or Jamendo
and through online for pay venues like PayPlay.fm where they charge a minimal fee and
give out selected freebies from most bands for free under a "karma points" system. I've just found out about Jamendo,
and I've been buying a LOT of MP3 tracks from the Renaissance/Celtic performer crowd that's taken to distributing much
of their stuff via PayPlay.fm.

In the end, I think a quote from Wargames best sums up my feelings in regards to the RIAA game:

"A strange game. The only winning move is to not play."

So much for tort reform

[JerryLove]

Why is it that I'm being told we need to cap damages to doctors who kill someone, but copyright infringement isn't sufficient when one copied CD will bankrupt pretty much any typical user of such material I'd care to imagine.

Good thing we have our priorities straight.

A New Plan?

[moskrin]

... so suing everybody isn't working out, so they figure they'd better try to get more from fewer successful lawsuits?

I think they should get what they are asking for

[ardle]

...but no government aid in collection of fines. Let them spend all their money on lawyers trying to sue almost the entire population for more money than exists on Planet Earth. The music will still be there after they're gone.
$1.5M per home-made compilation is CD is a measure of how scared the suits who hired the RIAA are.

Industry lobbying and insane fines.

[mscholin]

What we need is for this country to get back to what it was supposed to be, for the people. Proposals like this do not have the interest of the US Populous in mind. This kind of proposals and the laws that result from them are of no benefit to most people, only the corporations that buy them. What I'd like to know is what would it take to make Corporate Lobbying illegal. Corporate lobbyists only have the interests of their sponsor Company in mind and not what is best for this country. All these lobby groups do is bribe elected officials into passing the things. Also any politician that does not cast their vote the way the majority of the people they represent want, they should be removed from office and charged with criminal offenses. Almost all of the current people in office say whatever the voters want to hear then dance to the tune of whatever corporate sponsor paid to get them into office.

Who Do I...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask for all the money back that I spent over the last 30 years buying music in various forms. If they're going to say it's going to cost me 1.5 mil for 10 songs then I'll return all of my legitimate CD's, vinyl Albums, 8-track tapes, and cassette tapes, also those little 45rpms that I have. Because if I return all of these then the RIAA should at least pay me compensatory damages for the crappy ass music their artists filled these albums with. It should work both ways, if they say I can't do what I want with what I BOUGHT, then I should rightly expect fair compensation for all the years of listening to filler music and only 1 or 2 good songs.

That's a good idea

[OMNIpotusCOM]

Shortly following this announcement, The Topps Company (makers of Bazooka Joe bubble gum) have announced that they are filing to get the maximum penalty for petty theft to be increased in suit. Since the cost of stealing a $14.99 CD is going to be $1.5 million, the cost to the unlucky thief of stealing a single piece of $.15 bubble gum will be raised to $15,000. The reason for this should be obvious by now, in that each piece of full-flavoered Bazooka Joe bubble gum comes with a joke written on the wrapper, as well as every piece containing the top secret recipe which could be copied and put bubble gum makers out of business. Exacerbated by the high cost of litigation againts violators and paying for more commercials that brighten our image with the people we want to buy our product, $15k seems a bare minimum.