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..."
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.
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.
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.
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"
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?
Only the lawyers win.
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
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.
The songwriter/publisher hold the copyrights to words and music. Harry Fox and ASCAP pay the publishers, who are supposed to split it 50/50 with the songwriter.
The record label usually owns the sound recording copyright, although the artist can ask for it back after 35 years. This is the copyright which people are being sued for allegedly infringing upon.
If the artist did not write their own songs, they don't own any copyrights. The artists are paid according to the terms of their contracts. Unless there's a clause that deals specifically with this issue, the record label is under no legal obligation to give the artists a cut from the lawsuits.
Although this is more proof (as if we really needed it) that the RIAA lies every time it repeats the "it's all about the artists" mantra, I think that they are probably immune to being sued for it, except perhaps for the times they did it in a Senate or House subcommittee hearing or in court, and then only if they were under oath.