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.'"
Yeah, they're so "greedy" for wanting to get paid for their music. The nerve!
"Cultural commodity." I guess that's the latest pro-piracy propaganda used to justify not paying artists for their work I'm assuming if you ever work a job and your boss doesn't give you a paycheck you because he calls your work a "property of the people," you'll be fine with it.
Rules of Slashdot:
1.) An albums is a "cultural commodity" instead of what it actually is, a product created by humans put up for sale to make a living.
2.) The RIAA is a convenient scapegoat to distract everyone and make them forget you're ripping off the humans who made the music.
3.) If anyone brings up the artists you're ripping off, start into the usual spiel about how artists are the oppressed victims of their evil record labels even though artists willingly signed their contracts with those labels. Record labels distribute and advertise your music so that you can make a living off of it.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I absolutely agree that the US courts, RIAA, or really ANY organization out there can "end 50,000 years of the creation of music".
But that's not the point, really. The recording industry, in all of their greed and short-sightedness, really is damaging people's ability to enjoy music the way the artists intend it to be heard.
Have you seen the disgrace that is "digital mastering" in the big studios these days? Look at the waveforms of samples taken from recently released rock music CDs, if you don't believe me. They're so involved in a pissing match to release the "apparently loudest" tracks, they're compressing and normalizing the content to death. If they can find 1db of headroom they haven't saturated, they'll find it someplace in the pre-production stages. Most of the stuff out there has a waveform that looks like a rectangular block, not waves!
I like music from bands like the Foo Fighters and Breaking Benjamin, or the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but my ears get fatigued after only a couple tracks off any of their recent albums. It's because the studios have ruined the original recordings, boosting all the quiet portions of the songs and flattening the peaks to make it all an equally "hot" mix. Total ripoff!
It's very possible to claim the record industry really *is* playing a huge role in alienating a generation from enjoying music as it's meant to be heard. It's not only an issue of cost, or not making the content legally available in the formats people prefer or demand ... but they're physically destroying the QUALITY of the recordings too!