It doesn't matter what price the bootlegger was selling them for. Or even what price he paid for them. According to the RIAA, the "value" of a CD is the manufacturer's suggested retail price of the legitimate version of the same CD, which requires the seller to be excessively greedy and the customer to be brain-dead and willing to buy it for that price.
The important thing to remember is that the "value" is a fantasy. It's how much they wish people would pay them for CDs. In other words, it's whatever they want it to be today.
In 2006, the RIAA reported figures indicate an average "value" of $15.02 per CD, which would actually seem to make the valuation seem low, depending on how many DVDs there were.
The only thing the students seem to be rallying to is the quick payoff. 198 out of the first 400 students they just sued last month have already settled. That's more than a half million $$.
The RIAA will tell you that only one in 20 acts (5 percent) really makes a profit. Threatening letters are having a 50 percent success rate this year. Before that, the price was higher and they sued 20,000 people.
Compared to selling records, this is easy money. Invest in two reams of paper and postage (probably bulk rate), and half the people will send you $3000 immediately. Great work if you can get it./He used... sarcasm.
The RIAA recycles this same lame Consumer Price Index thing every year at this time, and usually right before they do something incredibly stupid.
Yes, the cost of "making a CD successful" has gone up. The RIAA will reinforce this by telling you that for every one band that has a successful release, there are another nine that were failures. The one has to cover for the other nine. Maybe the ratio is even higher, like 95 out of 100.
So basically they're saying prices should be higher because nobody really likes 90% of what they put out. That doesn't mean their taste will improve.
Maybe there never was a problem. Maybe the only problem is that Tommy,the kid down the street, can make his own recordings and you can hear them without Warner or EMI. Or put together a comedy routine on video. Or a movie. Or whatever you can dream of.
You don't need them any longer in order to reach the public. They have lost their role as gatekeepers, which is the only thing that has been "stolen" from them. If they can somehow "demand" DRM for their protection, then anything without it is immediately suspect as "illegitimate." Like Tommy, who might just find his own audience unless they can brand his music as inferior due to its exclusion from their ranks.
That's the purpose of DRM. They want to require a lock that only they have the key for, and deny the marketplace to all that do not possess it. The only thing it's designed to protect is their ability to act like they possess the only legitimate music in the world.
Fighting inanimate objects is silly. Nothing to fight. Just refuse to participate.
The statutory license to which this bill refers only applies to the RIAA, as they were the only copyright holders which were a party in the negotiations. Independents are not bound by it and are free to negotiate different royalties or waive their royalties altogether.
E. Sound Recordings Not Licensed Under Section 112/114
Many services, particularly those performing older works, transmit sound recordings that are not under federal copyright protection or whose term has expired. Also, many services may perform works that are in the public domain, or for which no copyright is claimed, or may directly license certain sound recordings from their owners.
When the first version became effective in 2002, Artemis Records waived all royalties for webcasters for the first year. The RIAA had no objection to Artemis' move, because their firm belief is that the copyright holder should have control over how their music is used.
There is no content protection that works, much less any that is reasonably available. It is not technologically feasible, therefore it cannot be economically reasonable.
This bill, if passed, would necessitate the removal of RIAA material from all satellite rasio and webcasting until they have economically reasonable, technologically feasible and reasonably available copy protection.
I think you're talking about settlements from lawsuits. The RIAA itself (the organization) doesn't collect royalties and ASCAP isn't a part of the lawsuits, as far as I know, and only collects royalties for songwriters.
Universal did give the artists part of the settlement from suing mp3.com. As far as I know, that's the only time the artists got a cut.
The artists are paid according to the terms of their contract. Theoretically.
If the RIAA collects the royalties, they'll have to pay the artists. If they collect it as the result of a copyright infringement case, they get to keep it -- just like they did with the money from YouTube and Kazaa.
Ask him about how widespread the problem of illegally sharing files with kazaa is.
To this I'd add...
-- Explain the nature of the settlement between the record industry and Kazaa.
-- Has UMG not already been legally remunerated for the actions of Kazaa's users by the above settlement?
The soft spot in any record label lawsuit is the actual copyright registration(s) and not simply because it will be a pain in the ass for the RIAA to comply.
When mp3.com was taken to court, the labels were set to produce thousands of copyright registrations as evidence. At that point, the artists stepped in (Recording Artists Coalition) and gummed up the lawsuit, which was quickly settled out of court. Why? Because the copyright registrations will inevitably say that the tune in question was "work for hire" and the artists cannot let the court accept those registrations as proof of ownership lest the artists lose their future chance at reclaiming their own work.
Let's just put the word 'Sony' aside, for ONE second.
Okay. I saw one of these things in a Fry's Electronics store. After seeing the $1200 price tag, I'm sure I will never use all the power of a PS3. Or even a little bit of it.
I agree that people know that stealing is wrong, but what I suggest is that many people may not realize that listening to music they haven't paid for is stealing.
That's ridiculous.
I live in Tempe, Arizona, about a mile from Sun Devils Stadium. The last time the Rolling Stones played there, I could hear the bass and drums in my living room. U2 had speakers high up enough that we got clear vocals, too. The city also has frequent concerts and special events, which are held outdoors near the lake. In the past couple of years, I've heard Blues Traveler, Billy Idol, BTO, Jeff Beck, and dozens of other bands. From my back yard.
This was stealing? Do I need to send, Mick, Bono and the rest a check? Or do I have to call the city and ask them to turn it down or charge me for tickets? Don't want to break the law, you know.
What if I'm in a bar and someone puts a quarter in the jukebox and plays a song. Everyone else is a thief? What if I'm playing in a bar and you ask to be on the guest list? What if I'm playing in the subway and you don't give me money? What if I'm really, really, really bad? Is it still thievery not to pay me?
I also listen to a commercial-free radio station, so I expect to get a subpoena any day now.
I've been playing music since 1972. I cannot think of one occasion where I ever felt that people were stealing from me because they could hear me playing and weren't paying for it.
Before the massive ad campaigns, I think most people didn't realize that they could be sued for downloading music.
After the ad campaigns, some people began to actually believe that downloading is some sort of offense.
The RIAA does not sue people for downloading, they sue them for making songs available, also known as sharing. Downloading is not illegal. If it were, iTunes wouldn't be in business. Or eMusic, or Rhapsody, or Napster, or any independent artist sites.
Downloading is NOT illegal. Sharing is only illegal if you offer RIAA music and that's still theoretical, as the RIAA has yet to actually prove their case in front of a jury. After more than 20,000 copyright infringement lawsuits, they've yet to even get to the point where they had to produce a single copyright registration.
If a track from the Beatles, Zeppelin or Springsteen has exactly the same value as a tune from The Wiggles or Hannah Montana, then the whole space-time continuum is obviously unraveling, creating the vortex of death that's sucking the industry down the internet tubes.
Not trying to pick on toetagger1 or anything, because SpencerOgden, Preacher Tom and SkuttleMonkey are all right along with you on this. Not to mention anyone who modded this "insightful."
Slashdot Mirror
...the RIAA is fighting against drug money, illegal gun money, and even "terrorism."
And that's just from the guys in marketing, who are annoyed that the legal dept. has taken over their former areas of expertise.
Their math doesn't add up.
This is basic RIAA math.
It doesn't matter what price the bootlegger was selling them for. Or even what price he paid for them. According to the RIAA, the "value" of a CD is the manufacturer's suggested retail price of the legitimate version of the same CD, which requires the seller to be excessively greedy and the customer to be brain-dead and willing to buy it for that price.
The important thing to remember is that the "value" is a fantasy. It's how much they wish people would pay them for CDs. In other words, it's whatever they want it to be today.
In 2006, the RIAA reported figures indicate an average "value" of $15.02 per CD, which would actually seem to make the valuation seem low, depending on how many DVDs there were.
The only thing the students seem to be rallying to is the quick payoff. 198 out of the first 400 students they just sued last month have already settled. That's more than a half million $$.
/He used... sarcasm.
The RIAA will tell you that only one in 20 acts (5 percent) really makes a profit. Threatening letters are having a 50 percent success rate this year. Before that, the price was higher and they sued 20,000 people.
Compared to selling records, this is easy money. Invest in two reams of paper and postage (probably bulk rate), and half the people will send you $3000 immediately. Great work if you can get it.
Note carefully that the letter itself made reimbursement of attorney fees part of the "deal."
Yes, he said it must be dismissed with prejudice. The RIAA's request for dismissal is without prejudice.
So... It's the RIAA that's the real threat to children. Aren't there already laws against child predators?
Sales are declining because every year the rosters are cut and fewer records are released.
The RIAA recycles this same lame Consumer Price Index thing every year at this time, and usually right before they do something incredibly stupid.
Yes, the cost of "making a CD successful" has gone up. The RIAA will reinforce this by telling you that for every one band that has a successful release, there are another nine that were failures. The one has to cover for the other nine. Maybe the ratio is even higher, like 95 out of 100.
So basically they're saying prices should be higher because nobody really likes 90% of what they put out. That doesn't mean their taste will improve.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would you blur "sensitive information" in this way?
How else are the terrorists going to know exactly which buildings are most important?
Maybe there never was a problem. Maybe the only problem is that Tommy,the kid down the street, can make his own recordings and you can hear them without Warner or EMI. Or put together a comedy routine on video. Or a movie. Or whatever you can dream of.
You don't need them any longer in order to reach the public. They have lost their role as gatekeepers, which is the only thing that has been "stolen" from them. If they can somehow "demand" DRM for their protection, then anything without it is immediately suspect as "illegitimate." Like Tommy, who might just find his own audience unless they can brand his music as inferior due to its exclusion from their ranks.
That's the purpose of DRM. They want to require a lock that only they have the key for, and deny the marketplace to all that do not possess it. The only thing it's designed to protect is their ability to act like they possess the only legitimate music in the world.
Fighting inanimate objects is silly. Nothing to fight. Just refuse to participate.
A gift card from Target ought to do the trick.
The statutory license to which this bill refers only applies to the RIAA, as they were the only copyright holders which were a party in the negotiations. Independents are not bound by it and are free to negotiate different royalties or waive their royalties altogether.
E. Sound Recordings Not Licensed Under Section 112/114
Many services, particularly those performing older works, transmit
sound recordings that are not under federal copyright protection or
whose term has expired. Also, many services may perform works that are
in the public domain, or for which no copyright is claimed, or may
directly license certain sound recordings from their owners.
When the first version became effective in 2002, Artemis Records waived all royalties for webcasters for the first year. The RIAA had no objection to Artemis' move, because their firm belief is that the copyright holder should have control over how their music is used.
There is no content protection that works, much less any that is reasonably available. It is not technologically feasible, therefore it cannot be economically reasonable.
This bill, if passed, would necessitate the removal of RIAA material from all satellite rasio and webcasting until they have economically reasonable, technologically feasible and reasonably available copy protection.
I don't have a problem with that.
I think you're talking about settlements from lawsuits. The RIAA itself (the organization) doesn't collect royalties and ASCAP isn't a part of the lawsuits, as far as I know, and only collects royalties for songwriters.
Universal did give the artists part of the settlement from suing mp3.com. As far as I know, that's the only time the artists got a cut.
The artists are paid according to the terms of their contract. Theoretically.
From a business point of view, lawsuits are more profitable than licensing.
If the RIAA licenses content, they have to share the income with the artists. If they sue, they keep the proceeds for themselves.
If the RIAA collects the royalties, they'll have to pay the artists. If they collect it as the result of a copyright infringement case, they get to keep it -- just like they did with the money from YouTube and Kazaa.
Ask him about how widespread the problem of illegally sharing files with kazaa is.
To this I'd add...
-- Explain the nature of the settlement between the record industry and Kazaa.
-- Has UMG not already been legally remunerated for the actions of Kazaa's users by the above settlement?
The soft spot in any record label lawsuit is the actual copyright registration(s) and not simply because it will be a pain in the ass for the RIAA to comply.
When mp3.com was taken to court, the labels were set to produce thousands of copyright registrations as evidence. At that point, the artists stepped in (Recording Artists Coalition) and gummed up the lawsuit, which was quickly settled out of court. Why? Because the copyright registrations will inevitably say that the tune in question was "work for hire" and the artists cannot let the court accept those registrations as proof of ownership lest the artists lose their future chance at reclaiming their own work.
Was that a bundle or something?
It's entirely possible. After I saw "PS3" and the price tag, for some reason I neglected to get close enough to see any details.
Let's just put the word 'Sony' aside, for ONE second.
Okay. I saw one of these things in a Fry's Electronics store. After seeing the $1200 price tag, I'm sure I will never use all the power of a PS3. Or even a little bit of it.
I think the scary part was that the infringing offense was providing a link to a publicly accessible file on the web.
I agree that people know that stealing is wrong, but what I suggest is that many people may not realize that listening to music they haven't paid for is stealing.
That's ridiculous.
I live in Tempe, Arizona, about a mile from Sun Devils Stadium. The last time the Rolling Stones played there, I could hear the bass and drums in my living room. U2 had speakers high up enough that we got clear vocals, too. The city also has frequent concerts and special events, which are held outdoors near the lake. In the past couple of years, I've heard Blues Traveler, Billy Idol, BTO, Jeff Beck, and dozens of other bands. From my back yard.
This was stealing? Do I need to send, Mick, Bono and the rest a check? Or do I have to call the city and ask them to turn it down or charge me for tickets? Don't want to break the law, you know.
What if I'm in a bar and someone puts a quarter in the jukebox and plays a song. Everyone else is a thief? What if I'm playing in a bar and you ask to be on the guest list? What if I'm playing in the subway and you don't give me money? What if I'm really, really, really bad? Is it still thievery not to pay me?
I also listen to a commercial-free radio station, so I expect to get a subpoena any day now.
I've been playing music since 1972. I cannot think of one occasion where I ever felt that people were stealing from me because they could hear me playing and weren't paying for it.
Before the massive ad campaigns, I think most people didn't realize that they could be sued for downloading music.
After the ad campaigns, some people began to actually believe that downloading is some sort of offense.
The RIAA does not sue people for downloading, they sue them for making songs available, also known as sharing. Downloading is not illegal. If it were, iTunes wouldn't be in business. Or eMusic, or Rhapsody, or Napster, or any independent artist sites.
Downloading is NOT illegal. Sharing is only illegal if you offer RIAA music and that's still theoretical, as the RIAA has yet to actually prove their case in front of a jury. After more than 20,000 copyright infringement lawsuits, they've yet to even get to the point where they had to produce a single copyright registration.
If a track from the Beatles, Zeppelin or Springsteen has exactly the same value as a tune from The Wiggles or Hannah Montana, then the whole space-time continuum is obviously unraveling, creating the vortex of death that's sucking the industry down the internet tubes.
Not trying to pick on toetagger1 or anything, because SpencerOgden, Preacher Tom and SkuttleMonkey are all right along with you on this. Not to mention anyone who modded this "insightful."
RTFA
It's about the FTC not the FCC.
The ad hominum attack is the only one the RIAA has.
If they're only worried about the corporate side, then why do they sue children and dead people?
...the kids who ride the short bus? Who is going to teach special ed if your pay is determined by your students' grades?
Who is going to teach the kids who can't speak English?
Nobody.
Apparently the majority of experts in the field haven't heard of gasoline or liquid propane.