Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Not Sharing Settlement Money With Artists
Klatoo55 writes "Various artists are considering lawsuits in order to press for their share of the estimated hundreds of millions of dollars the RIAA has obtained from settlements with services such as Bolt, KaZaA, and Napster. According to TorrentFreak's report on the potential action, there may not even be much left to pay out after monstrous legal fees are taken care of. The comments from the labels all claim that the money is on its way, and is simply taking longer due to difficulties dividing it all up."
...how difficult it is to divide by one...
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
With these crooks.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
They're just waiting for all the execs to be declared honorary lawyers by some diploma mill or another so they can claim the whole thing as 'legal fees'.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
The recent RIAA extortion has never been about the artists, merely keeping the "coke & whores" budget healthy.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
The RIAA does not exist to serve the artists. It's mission now is to suck all the money it can out of a dying business model.
Don't mind the extra X. Alex
Give me a moment to recover.
"I wish to God these calculations would have been made by steam." -Charles Babbage
Well why should they share the money when a good portion of it was gotten from people that didn't even download music from a copyrighted artist? You don't give money to artists if there was no damage. Logically what should be done is the RIAA should go to hell.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
They have all the data on how many times each song was infringed, so I'm sure this ought to be easy.
I'm no fan of RIAA, but the RIAA lawsuits aren't about recouping money for the artists. That would be a ludicrous business model (one where you let people steal your product and then sue them to recover you loses on a routine basis). The RIAA lawsuits are about raising the risk/reward ratio to make people decide not to steal music. It is about punishing bad behavior, not recouping lost royalties. Even if, in the end, RIAA burns every dollar it "recoups" on ongoing legal fees, that's fine and acceptable. The point is to hurt the downloaders, not help the artists WITH THE LEGAL JUDGMENTS. They serve to help the artists by stopping the illegal downloading.
When the RIAA discovered that they had some money left over after paying the lawyers, they needed some time. They have their best accountants working on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting.
Once they are done with the proper accounting procedures, they will make sure to give the token penny or two to the "poor, starving artists".
Java has no friends.
At what point did the RIAA claim that they were going through all these lawsuits on behalf of the artists? Uh... okay... those were the words in the broadside. Hmm.
Let's try again. At what point did they claim they were doing this to pay the arts for "lost profits"? There, that's it.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
.. it means Metallica aren't getting a share. I bet they'e kicking themselves now..
I dont quite understand the strategy of the RIAA, is this even a profitable strategy. You first need to collect evidence, then you need to file the lawsuit, and finally the defendant has to pay, that is if he or she is found in guilt. So now you to pay for the collection of evidence, then the lawyers, and then you have to hope the defendant has money to pay you to recoup the loss.
So I guess they have internal lawyers but as the cases grow in numbers you need to hire out law firms which is not cheap. I don't know who they pay to collect the evidence, or to tell if someone is infringing but they have to monitor the P2P networks and I guess the torrents.
So by the end of the case lets say the defendant is given a infringement cost of $10,000 or something. They still have to pay it up.
What person in their right mind thought this was a good plan. Theres so many parties to deal with, so much time that needs to paid for. In the end all I see happening is a loss plus tarnishing the name of the RIAA. Hell, if the defendant wins then the RIAA might have to pay them. This seems like a strategy proposed from old-school business into a new-business world.
The hefty legal fees are staying in the family so it's all good.
Well....not so good if you're an artist, but any artist who still hasn't figured out what the RIAA is all about probably deserves it.
The only CDs I've paid for in the last couple of years were from places like CDBaby who state exactly how much the artist will receive for each CD sold. Worse, I've bought albums I didn't really like from CDBaby because that artist has made other albums which I did like. The reason was I wanted the artist to have some money but the RIAA had control of the album I liked.
Pissing off your paying customers? Not a good business model.
The main reason I share music these days is just to annoy the RIAA.
No sig today...
Can I kick them instead :-)
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
but those contracts are very complicated.
That money might be divided up among the group, managers, writers, who has rights now, who had rights then, etc . . .
They might be stalling intentionally, but there reason isn't unrealistic.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Of course it's coming, we just have to win the lawsuits first.
Seriously, with all of the john-due suing that's apparently failed hard enough that the RIAA ends up paying attorney's fees, I'd be surprised if there's anything left to divvy up.
Of course, it goes without saying that the RIAA's board of directors get their yachts first, too. Can't even think about dividing up the money until those get paid off.
A few things:
1. I remember reading somewhere that the money all went back into more lawsuits, so I don't think that is boding well for money going to anyone who thinks they actually "earned" it
2. Do the artists get the "real" damages (i.e., paid for the one or two songs mediasentry supposedly caught them downloading), or the higher damages? As I don't think the artist owns the copyright in this case, how much are they really entitled to?
3. For the settlement letters, is there again a set amount per song that they listed as being due the artist? Or is it again only the royalties they would get from selling one song on a cd or itunes for example? If so, please expect about $.05 per settlement - not what they want (or think they deserve, but as a recent article on slashdot pointed out, the RIAA wants to reduced royalties while they are at it).
If I was the artist, I wouldn't go buying a car with the expectation that the check was in the mail... not even a matchbox car.
I believe it works this way. The record companies pay artists royalties and they pay the RIAA as well. I don't think the artists pay the RIAA. It seems to me that IF the RIAA is going to pay anyone it is going to be the record companies. If that happens will the record companies kick any money back to the artists? I doubt it.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
I find this all incredibly amusing. Here you have these pricks like Gene Simmons and Metallica out there fighting the good fight for the record companies, and now, suddenly, they all wake up and realize "Waitta minute! Those fuckers in the boardrooms are still crooks!"
Here's a bit of a friendly nod to all those artists who were retarded enough to believe the record industry was somehow looking out for them:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The RIAA's royalty database uses a fantastically advanced quantum storage technique. The whole thing fits in a cryogenic cell the size of a medicine pill bottle.
Unfortunately, the uncertainly principle kicks in when you take a close look . . .
I wonder how hard it would be to support a decentralized publicity campaign to directly tie these lawsuits, via the RIAA, to the agencies and artists the RIAA supports?
At present, it's largely a free lunch for the record companies - who have a vicious attack dog that uses tactics that shouldn't be legal. The bad PR doesn't do a very good job of reflecting back on them.
If the masses begin to associate these lawsuits with the music they're buying, that's when the pressure would mount.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
Imagine all the problems RIAA's gonna have dividing the profits once it gets the $1.65 trillion from Allofmp3.com! They'll need to rent dump trucks just to deliver checks to the artists.
Enough of this phony, pseudo-ideological nonsense. Most of you care nothing about how much the RIAA pays artists. Talking about it all the time just helps you with your cognitive dissonance and makes it okay that you steal music.
Based on TFA, it would appear that in this case the RIAA are the ones doing the stealing. Oh well. Here's to hoping you are paid by the word.
At any rate, did you mean pseudo-intellectual nonsense? Pseudo-ideological nonsense might actually end up making sense.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Musicians rarely get paid royalties. On paper they do, but only after deducting all the costs of production, manufacturing, distribution, accounting, you name it. Only a few highly visible musicians like Madonna ever see any actual money from record sales. That's why the recording industry's "protecting the artists" mantra is just smoke. Musicians make a living by performing. Records give them exposure, which translates to better gigs with higher ticket prices.
Record companies benefit when you buy.
Musicians benefit when you listen.
...the trick is to get that point across to the "artists in support of the RIAA"
For as fast as they can spit out their lawsuits, why does it take so long to issue the settlement to the artist? because RIAA is a bunch of greedy bastards. I don't agree with the RIAA and these lawsuits at all. Frankly i think they are overstepping their bounds and acting like the mob but if you are going to extract thousands from people then at least have the decency to pay the people you are supposedly protecting. Watch them come out and say to the artists that after the RIAA recoups their loss, there's nothing left for the artist.
Record companies benefit when you buy.
Musicians benefit when you listen.
So....what happens when you listen to what you buy?
I have a collection of, probably, 1200 CD's. 95% bought from music shops, some from boot-sales, flea-markets etc. NONE, & I repeat none are newer that 2004. You see I stopped buying!. {see the full stop?} after the record companies' agents started calling their customers "criminals".
I still have a considerably large vinyl collection, + a shed-load of commercial (not copied) tapes (mostly dupes of the vinyl - for playing in the car) even though I now don't have a functioning record player.
I looked this evening & for e.g. I have Bat out of Hell on vinyl, tape & CD - bloody three times!!
But if I fire up a p2p client - I'm a criminal.
WTF?
Copyright infringement is not "illegal".
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Talking about it all the time just helps you with your cognitive dissonance and makes it okay that you steal music.
When will this foolish drivel have run its course?
You can bring the day closer by defining what you mean by "stealing music". No, please do not assume that we are smart. No one is smart enough to figure out a phrase that is intentionally vague and insulting at the same time.
Do we steal music when we make a copy? When we make the first copy? An unauthorized copy? An illegal copy?
Do we "steal" music when we perform it without proper authorization?
Do we "steal" it every time we listen to an illegally made recording? Every time we listen to a recording without compensating someone? And if so, who are we supposed to be compensating?
Are we "stealing" it when we make a copy for a friend who would never find about the artist, if not for us?
Are we "stealing" when we remove DRM? When we digitize? When we shift formats?
Are we "stealing music" when we replace our stolen CD collection by getting it off the Pirate Bay (doesn't cost fat cats a dime)? When we legally download it from a different country? When we obtain a copy of something that is no longer published? When the artist is dead? How about when the artist says that it is OK, even though he does not own the rights? Is it still "stealing"?
You see, we just don't seem to have a good grasp of the meaning of the term you insist on using.
If you want to say "stealing music" on Slashdot, out of all places, even though it makes no legal (or any other kind of) sense, why won't you bloody define it for us? Or may be just say "infringe the copyright" instead, if that is all you mean to say?
Gene Simmons, is that you???????????????
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It would be big news if even one artist received so much as one thin dime from these legally sanctioned shakedowns.
I'm shocked, shocked to find out that the RIAA is stiffing the artists on piracy settlements, especially after the labels stiffed them on their original contracts.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Obviously this isn't going to happen anytime soon, but hypothetically speaking, if I were a paying member of an association whose responsibilities include paying me a share of the profits, and they blatantly failed to do so, I would sue them for monies owed, PLUS I would file a motion to have the crooked association dissolved as they are clearly unable to fulfill their contractual duties. That's what a class-action suit is for.
Kill them hard, and let the artists found a new association from scratch, one that represents them fairly. Their old friends (distributors, producers, marketers, venue operators) will follow.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Only the lawyers win.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
I think you should generalize less. I'm one of those dreaded ideologues and I probably spend somewhere between $500-1000 each year on new music. I haven't downloaded a song I didn't pay for in over 5 years. It just isn't worth the dollars in time to hunt for an album when I can just buy the thing, have it 2 minutes later and spend my time doing something else. Typical /. users, likely to be on the higher-side of the wage scale, probably do the same.
Actually, never mind. For a moment, I thought you were a real person, having spent the time to return and respond to my comment (you bookmark your AC trolls, I see). However, re-reading your comments made me realize my mistake. Instead, I think I'll submit a suggestion to CmdrTaco to change the "Post Anonymously" check box to a drop down list with three options: Post As User, Post Anonymously, Astroturf. The need is clear.
Take care,
k
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Why are artists held to such a level, that they should be willing to play for free so long as someone enjoys their music? Anyone familiar with history knows that the most famous artworks were commissioned by aristocracy and wealthy individuals. Why in the 21st century should we suddenly expect art to be free?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
must be furious considering all the mouths he had to feed back in 2000...
RIAA Not Sharing Settlement Money With Artists
... con artists are artists too.
Of course they are
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Companies like Exxon can get away with murder by polluting an entire coastline and having only to pay 2 weeks worth of profit as a fine. This is not greed, this is not tort reform, this is justice gone wrong. Thanks to the tort reform in America Exxon has a punishment that does virtually nothing to a company which committed a criminal act. The amount they have to pay is a drop in the bucket compared to how much the citizens of Alaska have paid with their well-being. So perhaps it is the lack of a real punitive damage which is greedy!
Yea, even today Exxon is still fighting having to pay anyone who had their livelihoods destroyed by Valdez. Fishermen among others had their income damaged, hut has Exxon paid anyone? No.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The people of Alaska knew that if they drove a car oil had to be transported, they knew the risks too.
Not all Alaskans drive cars, nor does all cars use petroleum oil.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That doesn't clear it up at all. How do you have to pay for it? What if you bought the cd, but it got scratched? What if it's no longer available for sale? ...or if it never was? What if you buy a track in a DRM-laden format, but then download it from another site in an unencumbered format?
Keep trying.
I can has settlement monees now, Pleez?
No! You can not has settlement moneez. Not yours!
RIAA is an acronym for Recording Industry Association of America. Niether "A" stands for artists. Sorry suckers!
How ya like dat?
If you sue someone for illegally distributing copyrighted material which you do not own the copyright to and then pocket the money, are you not conspiring to commit piracy by your own actions? Wouldn't this also be slander of title? Fraud? Illegal and improper enrichment? I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me, that the RIAA may be do some criminal activity here. I think the artists should sue them for the max and damages on top.
> Unfortunately, the uncertainly principle kicks in when you take a close look . . .
Somebody call PETA and let's see if we can get them on their case for killing kittens!
As long as artists KNOW about this, they'll realize that the RIAA is not good for them.
Hopefully this will help them go independent and get rid of the RIAA altogether.
That they've been funded is why they are the most famous artworks. There always has been and always will be great art that is free even if you've never heard of it. Find it and take advantage of it. I'm a huge fan of graffiti art and electronic music. Take a look at graffiti.org and grab some MP3s from hybridized.org or MP3s from any of the great artists that produce great stuff completely on a computer.
This has benefited me on a personal level greatly -- I'm exposed to really great music that would never be "commercially viable", which has given me ideas and inspiration for my own musical explorations that would have never happened otherwise. Furthermore, since being exposed to such a diverse array of interesting music, the typical consumer-friendly "music" sounds bland, uninspired, and frankly quite amateurish.
I really couldn't care what happens to the RIAA et al. They don't need me, and I certainly don't need them - which is a trend I've been noticing more and more lately. There's no real "need" for piracy anymore, there's plenty of great music out there for everyone, music that really *is* free.
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
Hey, you're beautiful
Don't ever change
You know what I mean
My girl will call your girl
We'll talk, we'll do lunch
Or leave a message on my machine
So baby, won't you sign
On the dotted line
I'm gonna make your dreams come true
The check's in the mail
Would I lie to you
In the past months, I've purchased many CD's (30), most from Sony/BMG, and none have any DRM.
Has your experience been different? What titles have DRM?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
We have the Fair Trade mark so that so that a consumer will know that the coffee, cocoa, sugar that they're buying will ensure that the producers of these commodities get a fair price for their wares - prices which will guarantee them and their families and communities a living wage and the ability to put their children through school and so on.
Perhaps, given the abuses of artists by labels, it's about time we had a music industry equivalent of the Fair Trade mark so music fans can trust that the people in the bands are being treated fairly by any record company/distributor they're working with?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Obligatory link to Albini's The Problem With Music - http://velcroman98.googlepages.com/albini
Kevin
Irrational Diversions
Who didn't see this coming?
Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
...it'll be here ANNNNNNNY day now. Any day...
Why is this a surprise to anyone? If you truly believed the RIAA was working for the benefit of the artists, then please let me lift off those rosy glasses of yours. This "crusade" of the RIAA's was NEVER for the benefit of the artists. It was all about 1) scaring the consumers into conformity and 2) lining the top executives own pockets. Granted after the legal fees the exes probably aren't seeing much as they would like. In a perfect world the artists would see a cut of what the RIAA wins, but lets face it we don't live in a perfect world.
I would be all for the RIAA if they were true to what they say. The reality is they are just a bunch of greedy company executives wanting more money for themselves, not the artists.
The artworks were paid for just once. The problem is that for hollywood, etc., once isn't enough.
See my journal, I write things there
You mean lawyers and record execs are all social parasites who contribute nothing and then take the Lion's share..who knew?
As long as a high priced lawyer can get you any better an outcome than the highest priced lawyers then they have proven that the legal system is undeniably corrupt and lacks any legitimate authority.
As long as we govern ourselves by rule of law and politics then the world will be a horrible place.
It may not be "immoral", but it's illegal wherever there's laws prohibiting it.
(That's the definition of "illegal")
The artists don't make any money from RIAA-mediated CD sales* so I have a hard time feeling bad over pirate CDs.
[*] Technically they do get royalties, but the artists have to pay for all production, promotion, videos, etc. and the RIAA gets to set the price of those, not the artist. In practice the marketing and video production companies are all in the RIAA "family" and artist's paycheck always seems to end up at almost exactly zero.
Coincidence? I think not....
No sig today...
Hundreds of millions of dollars has gone to legal fees? So in other words, the one's who are supposed to be taken care of and the ones who do all the work, the artist get nothing? Isn't that like saying I fight in the name of Allah yet I don't believe in Islam? All the benefit's and justification of backing something to justify your cause. Yet in the end they have nothing to show for it. Pretty typical, can it get any worse for the RIAA? They should be ashamed and they deserve all the bad PR they get. I hope they burn to the ground in the next decade. They are worthless and more trouble then they are worth.
I want spam! cranbers@gmail.com
I don't think anyone's suggesting artists shouldn't get paid at all, but the system we have now is broken. You say artists were commissioned by the wealthy, meaning they were paid -once- to create a piece of art, not paid every time someone came into contact with that art for the rest of their lives.
Artists should be paid when they do work, like (almost) everyone else. In the case of musicians, this means performing shows, or being paid (once) to record music.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Musicians make a living by performing. Records give them exposure, which translates to better gigs with higher ticket prices.
An oversimplification, at best.
Consider a "band" like Steely Dan. They stopped touring in 1975, but the band remained "active" until 1981, and both principal songwriters were able to continue make a living off album royalties and other studio work (like production) for many years thereafter; it was more than a decade until they performed as a band again.
For some acts, live performances are most profitable; for others, studio work is. (For yet others, merchandising.) There's no formula that's universally applicable to all musicians.
Will handed me a CD the first time he saw me, and told me to pass it around. He got picked up by Lucas Arts. Nice guy.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Could somebody explain "Astroturfing" to me? I can't quite seem to figure out how the common usage relates to plastic grass.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
http://www.answers.com/astroturfing?cat=technology&gwp=13
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
I don't have to be a drug user to be appalled by the War on Drugs.
I don't have to be a "pirate" to be appalled by the RIAA's tactics.
Some people have this thing called empathy, and this sense that the punishment should fit the crime. When you have people being ruined for life for what would, if it involved a physical CD, get them a few hundred dollars fine and a suspended sentence... that's just outrageous.
"Why in the 21st century should we suddenly expect art to be free?"
Because all of a sudden in the 21st century the costs of reproducing said art has dropped to zero (well, as close to zero as you're likely to ever see). So once the artist has been compensated for the initial act of creativity, there's nothing left to pay for.
The record companies made a killing for decades by controlling the distribution channels, forcing people on both ends of the equation to be beholden to them. Now they're not needed anymore. The artist can create and then for very little marginal cost distribute 1, 10, 10,000 copies. All that remains is to decide how to compensate the artist for the original creative act.
Ah okay, so it involves money and contracts and is analogical. Got it.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The RIAA is a record label trade association that represents the labels but, it is the individual labels (see link below) that represent artists -- not the RIAA. The RIAA is a house of lawyers that serve the RIAA to insure the RIAA's survival. There are many (read: most) domestic record labels that are members of the RIAA - more than just the "Big 4" labels. This is why the law suits are NOT the RIAA v. some_innocent_person. It is the individual labels named as plaintiffs in the suits (EMI, Sony, Warner, Artista, etc.)
The RIAA is also not a royalty collection agency like ASCAP & BMI, Harry Fox Agency, SoundExchange, SoundScan, ... so, the money they make doesn't really have a pot to be put into and then distributed. If it did, the money would be distributed between all the record labels they represent and it would then be up to the labels to divvy the pot.
You are correct in assuming that the RIAA is not interested in the artists. They are not. It isn't their purpose or charter. They are a bureaucracy that breeds upon itself. This is why they want to actually reduce the royalties that artists make. This is why they never get involved directly with the artists. It isn't their business.
So, this shouldn't be surprising that the RIAA is keeping all the money they extort. If the labels touched it, they could be accused of "unclean hands".
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Just a bunch of vultures picking over the carcass of what's left of the record industry.
Spooky irony,my captcha: "record"!
Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
You're arguing my point, every musical era has had bad music. I recall year ago when parents called rock n roll devil's music. Many adults call what their children listen to as bad music.
Entertainment is the last thing people make cuts on during economic downturns
From American Express: "We are less weighted toward the travel and entertainment sector and have a larger presence in everyday categories where consumers don't typically reduce their spending during economic downturns to the same extent as they do in T&E spending." "Entertainment is the #1 Largest Optional Spending Catagory." "Demand shocks - reflecting changes in the level and pattern of spending by consumers owing to 'social distancing', eg cuts to travel, tourism and entertainment spending". "Customers from the financial services industry have noticeably cut back on travel and entertainment spending, AmEx believes."
Why buy a CD when you can download it at the same quality?
Same quality? I doubt much downloaded music has the same quality as CDs. I doubt even iTune's higher bit rate and DRM free music sell more than the DRM'ed and lower quality music. And iTunes owns the music download space.
FalconShould there be a Law?