Slashdot Mirror
RIAA 'Elektra V. Barker' Case Is Settled
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Elektra v. Barker, one of the leading cases repudiating the RIAA's 'making available' theory, has been settled. Unlike in most cases, the actual settlement agreement (PDF) is on file with the Court, and a matter of public record. Now Ms. Barker's attack on the constitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory, as well as her other defenses — including unclean hands based on MediaSentry's illegal behavior, the RIAA's inability to sue for statutory damages, and innocent infringement — will not be adjudicated, and it will fall on the shoulders of other defendants to carry the day on those issues. Ms. Barker, a young social worker who lives in the Bronx, once told p2pnet 'I love music. I grew up in a house where music was played all the time. We had milk crates filled with albums.... So to be sued for having music files on my computer is an insult. It's a slap in the face. This experience has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I wanted to swear off music.'"
The funny thing is that the milk crates were almost certainly stolen and illegal for them to have as well.
And if the mail runs late or she misses a payment or she bounces a check, she's on the hook for double (over $12,000.00) the settlement amount.
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
For NYCL; Okay - so I am bit slow on legalese - so forgive the grade-school level question. She took up the settlement (can't blame her - the soap opera has to be stressful) however, all the arguments and defenses are laid out that any other person targeted by the RIAA could use these as the blueprint for their defense, and have a judge rule on them? (correct?) Could then someone include her settlement in a further class action of some form, and get it overturned ? If so, this would be more of a 'baton relay' than a capitulation as some suggest.
what should be a cultural commodity and property of the people
So why aren't you forming organizations to elect people who promise that once they're in congress they'll pass bills forming a Department Of Entertainment that employees these people and which distributes their work? I mean, if these people and their work are going to be public property, you're going to need a nice solid bureaucracy to keep them working right. Of course, every four years, a new Secretary Of Music will need to be appointed and approved, which means that a years-long recording effort that no longer fits the new administration's taste in music will have to be abandoned in favor of something else. We certainly can't have a bunch of artists running around deciding for themselves whether or not to risk their time and money on something that won't be appreciated... no, it's better to have the government say what we enjoy.
I mean, it's working in North Korea. Centrally managed culture is awesome. Of course, next year, we'll have to see who's in charge of the culture, since the word "awesome" may have to be swapped out with "swell" or "da bomb" or something, depending on who gets elected.
You're certainly on to something, though. Artists should definitely be working for the state. And if they don't like it, I'm sure we have some openings in mining or seasonal farm labor. History's full of great examples of how to manage that sort of thing. Why, we could even form arist's "camps," where we could concentrate them for the best results! Excellent suggestion, citizen! No doubt our noble artists are rejoicing even now at the chance to be your property!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's so sad but so true. I guess the truth is I don't listen to mainstream music anymore. It's kinda something I don't want anything to do with and the greedy record companies are the reason.
I'm in a similar boat. My tastes were already leading me away from the major labels years ago, and a year or so ago I decided that my principles were demanding a complete halt to RIAA-member produced media. With the help of RIAA Radar, as well as just plain payin' attention, I've been able to make sure that anything that catches my eye isn't on the "bad" list. My main avenues for exposure are concerts and clubs, as well as just skimming bands' websites and pages on sites like MySpace and ReverbNation to find other bands connected to them.
The result? I have about 15-20 bands I try to keep up with and see when they tour through the Midwest, and pick up their CDs from the shows or order from their websites. This gives me enough new music to keep me going, and I'm typically adding another band to that list every couple of months.
There's always a little bit of a crestfallen moment when a band I really like announces on their blog that they've signed a deal with [insert major label name here], because as much as I want to keep supporting them, I don't want to contribute to feeding the beast, so to speak. I wish them the best, but since they'd end up with little/none of my money even if I were to buy their RIAA-produced CD, better it stays in my pockets than going to the major label.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Modbomb incoming.
... and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing's missing
You earned it.
You really should make some effort to understand how the record labels rip off everyone involved with them before you make such commentary.
Here's a quote from Janis Ian:
The NARAS people were a bit more pushy. They told me downloads were "destroying sales", "ruining the music industry", and "costing you money". Costing me money? I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I'm not the original AC. I don't use phrases like "Cultural commodity."
"justify not paying artists"
I have no problem paying artist, being a classically trained violinist. I do have an issue with paying the middle men huge fees for little service, and funding their legal "war chest" so they sue otherwise upstand citizens into the ground for "stealing music."
I'll admit that it is in the interest of artists to sign with labels for distribution, and that signed artists make a lot more money in royalties on average. It doesn't, however, change the fact that turning lawsuits into profit strategy is an abuse of the legal system. The methods the RIAA's Media Sentry uses to catch pirates is unconstitutional and DDOS-ing a perfectly legal and upstanding campany is completely illegal.
So, as it stands:
1. Yes, "cultural commodity" just sounds like: "The music wants to be free man...." to me too, and is just silly.
2. RIAA is horrible association with unethical and illegal methods; and is the main party being harmed by copyright infringers (not pirates, they are in the oceans and raid ships; not music theives, they steal and legal speaking copyright law and property theft laws are [as they should be] completely different animals)
3. The artists may or may not be "being ripped off" depending on if the RIAA's argument or slashdot argument about buying trends is correct.
Personally, I think if DRM, buying physical media with content and bad behavior of the industry were to come to an end and prices for music would become reasonable then copyright infringement from the major labels would drastically fall off.
I haven't bought a CD in a very long time, nor have I illegally downloaded music for a very, very long time. I'm not going to engage in illegal copying, but neither am I going to fund the assault and abuse of the system we are currently seeing.
Copyright is necessary to promote the progress of arts and useful sciences, but the current system is broken. Terms are too long, and currently serves not to protect innovation but to stifle it. I don't know what the solution is, but this is one area where legislators and the citizens need to begin working to find a solution.
That's a funny spiel given that she now records for a label that is distributed by one of the "big four". I guess that says a lot about her integrity and commitment to her supposed cause. She hates the industry so much that she's giving it more money for doing even less for her than what they did before when she called it "piracy".
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Bzzzzt - wrong answer.
You are using the word "album", but what you really mean is "music". And in the natural order of things there is simply no way to "sell" music - once it's sung once, anyone with a good memory can sing it again. Sure, you can charge for performances, and you can charge for the physical media, but the idea that you can charge for what is essentially a thought or an idea is a wholly artificial construct.
Copyright law was supposed to be an enormous social contract - the people, in the form of the Government, promised not to copy an artists work for a limited period of time, after which the work reverts back to it's natural state - which is to say, free of all legal encumbrance.
IP companies have perverted this process, starting with the Berne convention (I'm looking at you, Europe) to where creative works NEVER enter the public domain. They did this by legal encumbrances of the physical media involved. But now throw in a new wrinkle - it is possible to transmit the idea or though as information itself, with no media. So teh IP companies now are trying to regulate disembodied information, which is proving to be impossible.
I especially love your #3: "Record labels distribute and advertise your music so that you can make a living off of it." Are you serious? They distribute your music so THEY can make a living, not the artist. Prior to the advent of copyright, artists made their living for thousands of years in the same way - pay for performance.
- Ogg is a particularly good cave painter. Ugh just finished a legendary hunt. So Ogg paints the tale on the wall, and Ugh gives him some food. END OF TRANSACTION.
- The Pope wants a mural on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Michaelangelo paints it, and gets paid. END OF TRANSACTION.
- A balladeer sings his songs in a tavern. The tavern keeper comps his room, because people come to hear the music. The drunks throw change in his hat. END OF TRANSACTION.
Is file sharing illegal? I believe it is.
Are most file sharers doing it because they are cheap and not out of civil disobedience? Absolutely.
But neither of those facts takes away from the reality that copyright, as we know it, is dying.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
1.) No one is obliged to buy an item that is overpriced. In fact, an underground economy cannot exist without either rationing or artificially high price floors. Since we don't have rationing in this case, it follows that the price of music media is too high given the current market. If you really want to make a sale, remember the adage: "If a customer wants to give you money, you let them." Customers have spoken with their wallets and said, "Let us download good, DRM-free content." The RIAA has enforced the media industries' stance that such sales will be considered piracy. But the term "piracy" has lost it historical meaning, since now it is no longer the case that 1 pirate sale equals 1 lost sale in the legitimate market. Someone who downloaded the entire Beatles catalog will still buy paraphernalia. It does mean that the market has shifted such that a good song is now a vehicle for concert attendance, t-shirts, posters, etc., rather than a source of income in and of itself. This is a much better arrangement from the consumer's POV compared to 20 years ago, when it was likely that a $15 CD with 11 songs would contain 2 worth listening to. And in a market driven economy, what's good for the consumer generally wins out in the end.
2.) If humans want to make a profit, they have to make a product that others want to buy at prices that reflect the current market. If I choose to sell a decent graphic novel of my own creation for $100 per issue, I shouldn't be surprised when I find it for free on the Internet. $100 is too high for a graphic novel by any stretch, and I didn't offer it in the media my customers' wanted. The tack you would seem to advocate is to sue my customers because they've broken the law. True, but if I want to stay in business, it might not hurt to try offering the issues for free on the net and then selling paper editions: regular for $10, deluxe for $100. The market will then dictate what to do next. Humans tend to upgrade their stuff based on their incomes, be it better editions, DVD's, or concert attendance of their favorite artists, so with my model, good content will still generate a profit.
3.) Content creators are not owed a profit by their customers or by their management. They have to earn it based on what they have to offer and what the public is willing to pay for. Offer what the customer wants at a price the market reflects, and profit generally occurs. Doing otherwise, especially suing customers, shows short-sightedness, greed, and egotism.
It comes down to this: do you want to make a profit in this market or not? This market is not the market of 20 years ago, and no amount of name-calling or foot-stamping will change that. It's no longer possible to have a millionaire lifestyle through royalties off of one song written in 1960. If your customers want music for free, remember that they buy tickets, t-shirts, coffee mugs, posters, and subscribe to a web site in order to be the first to download the latest album.
Can you PLEASE write the same two paragraphs in every music/RIAA/etc related thread? Because it seems a lot of people don't know this.
I had a student loan a while back - one of those "We'll give you a real awesome interest rate, but if you're ever late on a payment, we'll jack it up hugely! Also, no payments until a year after you get out of school!" So I did some school and pretty much forgot about the payment.
Guess whether they gave me any warning that my payments were about to start. Nope! First thing I got from them in two years was a letter saying "Well, you were late on this payment - guess your interest rates triple now! Sucks to be you."
Luckily, I had enough money to just pay the entire thing off in cash, and I wasn't dumb enough to sign up for a full-interest-up-front loan. But, yeah - it was pretty clear their goal was to avoid warning me about that payment in any way, just so they could raise the rate as quickly as possible.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
$45K/year is about what the average household income is in the U.S. Now substitute venture capitalist for recording company in the article. What does the average guy who started a software company get? About the same deal as this mythical band got. The band didn't have to take the contract. Neither does the software engineer. Both can try to make it on their own by growing their customer base organically. But if you decide to take the man's money in order to shortcut the process, why do you think that you are entitled to the riches? It was the VC or recording company that took the risk that you were going to be a flop. It isn't your money that is being risked, it is theirs.
FreeSpeech.org
I think it's a problem bigger than that. People want to make money forever off work they've done once. It's not really any different than investments. It's the idea of "letting your money work for you". It's all only possible through bad laws and economic practices.
Indeed, many record companies probably only consider their artists to be investments. And so, the shareholders of the companies profit while they sit back and (probably) just enjoy the good life.
Really, they're the ones we should be angry with. They're the ones demanding more profits. They're the ones who fund all the lobbying of congress, for laws that allow them to maintain their ways of life. It's the rich bastards of the world (which includes most elected officials).
I think file sharing proves that society, in general, disagrees with the idea of letting your money work for you. If people felt like they were causing others to starve, they might think twice. But they know all they're doing is MAYBE causing rich bastards to be slightly less rich. I know I don't shed any tears over it, and I think it's social justice.
I think it's completely legitimate to think, "I work hard every week. These people live way better than I do. Why should I give them my money, if I can find a way not to?" I think that's the thought a lot of people have when they pirate music.
If we could really get to END OF TRANSACTION, I think we'd all be a lot better off.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Yeah, pretty much. Or the library. I'll also buy discs directly from musicians (say, at a concert, or online.) Just don't want to give big music my money.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.