Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
The penalty would be much less than this.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
So, what they are saying is that copying a CD deserves more of a punishment than does taking a CD from somebody by force?
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.
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"
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.
Give as much money to politicians as the RIAA has and you'll both get your wish.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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!
If you're going to steal CDs, why not start with a store that doesn't put RFIDs on all of it's merchandise?
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
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.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
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.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
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.
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.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
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!
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.
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.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
The game.
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.
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.
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 $1,000 and never tour, they are welcome to. They should be in control of the product that they want to offer. If they choose to screw around with my unwritten contract with them, and offer services that I can't afford or do not want, they don't get my money and support. If they want to use DRM, they won't get my support. If they care that I got a copy of the album from a friend before I purchased it, I will lose a lot of respect for them and they won't get my
My problem with the big labels and RIAA is that they assert too much control over the artists for my taste.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
...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.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.
I am my own gestalt.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
...$1.5 million per violation of consumer rights.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
"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."
This space available.
The Hillary outcome is interesting, though - so instead of a RINO (Republican in name only), she's a RONIN (Republican, only not in name)
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.
Bribing Congressmen doesn't come cheap. They have to make it back SOMEWAY.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.