RIAA Paid $16M+ In Legal Fees To Collect $391K

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a rare outburst of subjectivity, I commenced my blog post 'Ha ha ha ha ha' when reporting that, based upon the RIAA's disclosure form for 2008, it had paid its lawyers more than $16,000,000 to recover $391,000. If they were doing it to 'send a message,' the messages have been received loud & clear: (1) the big four record labels are managed by idiots; (2) the RIAA's law firms have as much compassion for their client as they do for the lawsuit victims; (3) suing end users, or alleged end users, is a losing game. I don't know why p2pnet.net begrudges the RIAA's boss his big compensation; he did a good job... for the lawyers."

Comments

TLDR

[Dr. Hok]

What is your point? You have identified a difference between copying and theft, as much as there is a difference between poisoning and decapitating.

In the end, the results are essentially the same: The victim loses money, as much as he (probably) dies in the simile. There is only a subtle difference between taking the money away right now, and preventing the copyright holder to earn it. When I copy music the artist (probably) doesn't sell a CD, and when some Chinese backyard firm makes counterfeit stuff, the original manufacturer (probably) doesn't sell their original stuff.

Of course, you could argue that some people wouldn't buy it anyway, so what's lost. But there are other people who would have bought it, if it were not so easy to just copy it. Opportunity makes the thief, as the saying goes.

So, IMHO copying IS theft, at least as far as the victim's property is concerned.