What the consumer wants is a value for money product and a good quality of service. Neither of which is being offered by this farcical scheme.
In which case the market will determine this, as it always does. But it can't determine this as long as people are prepared to unfairly compare the legitimate product against the pirated. This normalizes the use of the pirated, making it ok to 'steal' a movie rather than pay for it. How many times do you see the argument put forward here that it's ok to file share stuff, because the bad old industry won't provide it at a fair price?
People want to watch movies on their TV, portable player, have the ability to make backup copies of their media and have the convenient delivery service of near instant electronic downloads without being charged both arms and both legs. Not too much too ask for is it? Unfortunately the movie studios think it is
No, not too much to ask. But as experience shows, as soon as people are given this they'll go further and start ripping the industry off by taking stuff for free. Not because they're being unfairly charged by the industry, but because they can. And then when the industry objects they're told tough luck, technology has moved on, time to update your business practices. The fact is; people like something for nothing. And as long as they're supplied with a half way plausable excuse to justify it, they'll do it.
Google, Red Hat, MySQL and a host of Open Source Software houses seem to be doing ok
Totally, totally diffent products and markets. How much money do you think can be made providing support for viewing a movie? ("Confused with a plot? Phone Movie-Doctor helpline now. We will identify the problem and patch in the latest script so you'll be back enjoying your blockbuster in no time!") How far do you think Hollywood would get trying to support itself with adverts? You willing to sit through an advert break in the middle of the film you bought? How many good films have you ever seen made by two dozen volunteers who've never met?
I think this displays the mindset on Slashdot, champion of open source. Because software can be produced this way, they think everything else can.
their not at all interested in giving the consumer what they really want.
But what is it that the consumer really wants? By your argument what the consumer really wants is the DVD for free, months before the legitimate release, with the ability to pass it on for free to as many of their friends they like.
Are you expecting the movie industry to provide that? Are you seriously saying that any industry should be expected to compete competitively in a market against their own product being given away for nothing? Because, guess what, the industry actually producing the product and trying sell it at a profit is going to lose out in that particular comparison. It is not a fair market and demands that they match this are ridiculous.
Go after the problem drivers, rather than ticketing the guy who can hanle calling his wife via voice-dial for 15 seconds to let her know he is on the way home.
So you're suggesting that the law should be based on someone's evaluation of their own capabilities?
"I think I can handle talking on the phone while driving, therefore it's legal. It's those other scatter-brain guys who are the problem."
"I think I can have five drinks and still drive home safely, so it's legal. It's those other guys who can't handle their liquor that are the problem."
GDP is a measurement of wealth. And it is a measurement that does not factor in any of the environmental impacts unless legislation decides they should have a financial cost. Some crazy people actually think things like clean air and water are wealth beyond all measure. Where does GDP factor them in?
GDP is meaningless in this debate. It doesn't include a whole raft of environmental and health negatives. We can sit snug and wealthy, happy that our GDP is energy efficient, but if we're turning the planet into a unlivable trashheap in the mean time it won't matter a whole lot in the long run, will it?
The United States uses 23.6% of the world's energy to to produce 28.4% of the world's gross domestic product---it seems that the U.S. is actually rather efficient.
Efficient at what? Making tomorrow's landfill?
GDP is a really bad indicator to measure "planet-friendlyness" by because it conviently ignores all the dirty sides of production.
I'd advised anyone not to venture down the road of looking up this name on google groups. That way madness lies. An impossibly tangled tale of exhaustive arguments, repeated lawsuits, slander, death threats, possibly at least two people posting under the same name, blatant trollery, petty fights with other usenet loons. Nothing of any real consequence or importance to real life.
CDs in the 80s cost around £15. That's more than 15 Euros, and 20 years ago. By today's prices that would be £35 (at a rough guess), or about 50 Euros.
So CDs are a fraction of the cost they used to be. What was your point again?
But instead of reducing their prices to reflect the change in cost to deliver the product to market, these companies decided to increase their costs, in the name of profitability and growth and investors. When customers saw that the companies were overcharging them, they began to deliberately turn away, continuing to take the product, but without paying for it. In turn, the companies decided to increase their prices further, to make a greater profit off of the shrinking market. But the more they increased the cost, the fewer customers they seemed to have...
It's right about here that your little tale falls apart, isn't it? By my reckoning in real terms music is the cheapest it's ever been. 20 years ago a CD could cost £15. Now it's rare to find one over that price. How much have other prices gone up in that same period? So where exactly are these increasing prices you speak of? You're not making them up are you??
Of course when you compare that with getting the music for nothing the prices are steep. But that would be the case in every industry and every product. People don't take the music industry's product for free because they thing they are being over-charged. They do it because people like something for nothing. As long as they think they can get away with it and can invent self-serving justifications for it.
And far from the market shrinking, it's expanding. Not a day seems to go by without another company offering online music sales. Online sales are booming, never been better. It would appear, amazingly, that the music industry know their market better than some 'Insightful' post on slashdot full of made up facts.
Darwinism, when taken on itself, says the universe spontaniously came into existance for no reason whatsoever at all and that mankinds choices lead to his evolution
No it doesn't. Darwinism says absolutely nothing about the creation of the universe.
often it also evolves into a "why are we here" thing
No it doesn't. That is not a question that Darwinism makes any attempt to address.
Darwinism says there's no point to existance and death
No it doesn't.
You don't know the first thing about Darwinism, so your entire post is garbage.
Since they form a substantial percentage of the local communities, MP's are desperate to keep on their good side to stay in power.
Outrageous! How unlike other MPs in other communities who pay no heed of what their constituents think! It's this kind of sneaky "keeping on the good side of your voters" that's ruining our country!
Also, it's taken the police around 10 years to arrest Abu Hanza for charges relating to terrorism, while all the time they knew he was providing terrorism training courses.
That would be the kind of "knowing" that meant nothing about training courses was used to prosecute him.
Now, the victims of the London bombings (around 500) are planning to sue the government for incompentence for failing to arrest him sooner.
This is an unfounded statement. What evidence do you have that this is planned, and what evidence exists to connect Hanza to the bombings? Curiously, Scotland Yard believes there is none. What kind of conspiracy are you suggesting here?
I'm not supporting Hanza, he's a nut-case, but this kind of knee-jerk reaction and mindless smearing of entire communities and religions is exactly the kind of bollocks that causes paranoia and support for ID cards, as if they were some kind of solution to a poorly defined and unsubstantiated fear.
This is not racism but we do lack a word for discrimination based on faith, don't we?
And what has this to do with immigration and ID cards??
Hmmm... what about catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland?
What about them?
Religion is one thing, at least, it is not suggested that the cards store. Your religious persuations have nothing to do with your identity, at least not in any way that uniquely identifies you. Not even Blair's government could make a case for this.
So not paying Peter Jackson for his work is ok, as long as he gets his name on the film? Interesting. So Peter Jackson should work for free? Or perhaps you think he should get paid, just by other people.
The word for this is "free-loading" and its usually frowned on.
And the whole 'regular people' argument is as flimsy as ever. If movies are regularly ripped off then companies stop making as many. Whether they reach this decision because they're not making mega-profits anymore, or not isn't the issue. Film companies are not charities. They exist to make profits. No profits = no films. If they don't make as many, then 'regular people' don't get employed as much.
The similarity with open source is that here people have decided to make the fruits of their labour freely available. In just the same way that the likes of Peter Jackson has decided to make his not freely available (probably because it cost a hell of a lot to make). In both cases in our example some third party has decided to ignore the wishes of the creator of the work to suit themselves, and then posture some moral rationality that explains why, yes, of course, they should be allowed something for nothing.
there's still good people working behind the scenes who made it all possible
Interesting definitions of "good people" and "working". I'd term them more as "enablers of piracy" and "copying others' work".
Typical flaming slashdot. If this guy was linking to software that ignored open licencing he'd be getting hate email. But because he's helping rip off others' work outside the computing industry he's some kind of hero.
1 hour to learn how to build your own computer, plus over-clocking???
Wow, that's easy! Where do all those hardware technicians get the nerve to charge for their work? You can learn to build a new one in only an hour! No risk! Infinite customability! You can learn at home and be earning big money within the week! Read about some of our success stories below!
Michael Dell, Austin
"I thought these work-from-home emails were all scams until I tried this one! Now I'm worth millions, if not billions! And all after only 1 hour's learning! It was that easy! I can over-clock too!!! Everyone should do this!"
Exactly. Dell, like any other big multinational, got where it is by exploiting every possible revenue stream. Filling their pre-installs with crap that leads the consumer into making more purchases (either from Dell, or to another company that pays a referal fee) makes a whole lot of sense to Dell.
Unfortunately is makes no sense at all to the end-user, unless of course they really need to buy some of this stuff. Most don't, so it's just annoying crap to them.
Dell make good, reliable machines (in my experience). But the first thing I always do is a complete re-install. The only other option is forever wondering about, worrying about and fighting against all the pre-install crud; 50% of which you don't want, 25% of which you've no idea what the hell it is (don't expect it to be mentioned in the documentation) and 25% you never knew was there to begin with.
It would never occur to me to buy a Dell without the install discs. Selling a system without them shouldn't be legal. It's like being sold a coat; but being sewn into it before you leave the shop because they don't want to supply you with a zipper.
Congratulations. How to eliminate any chance of anyone with half a brain trying out your new product.
This stupid practice ranks right up there with the annoying online software retailers who first take your money (through credit card or paypal) and then throw a whole lot of intrusive and compulsory questions at you before they'll let you download. Quit with the damn impertinent questions and give me the software I've paid for!
This looks nice, but could be completely useless too. Guess I'll never know now. They're not getting my credit card.
Funny how you think the record labels won't go as low as.60 cent.
I didn't say that. The record labels will price their product where-ever it makes most profit. If that's.60, then so be it. If it's.99, then ditto.
The plan is to reach the illegal download market and one way of doing that is putting the cheaper cost in their face over and over and over again through ads.
I would suggest that no company can compete in a market with 'something for nothing'. This is why they have to use the force of law to try to stop illegal downloading.
However, you have no idea what the demand curve looks like at.50 cent for a song. Profit could triple at that cost making it a great move,
Indeed it might. Do you think record companies haven't consider this? If they thought that.50 would maximize long-term profits, then that's what they would price at.
I think that the record companies know far more about the music market than any of the self-appointed experts on slashdot mouthing off about "business models", as if they all have MBAs and better ideas.
No, that would be the actual cost. As I said, the price is determined by the market. If the market says people will pay.99 in sufficient numbers, then.99 is the price chosen. If you don't like this price, don't pay it. If enough consumers reach the same conclusion then the market will determine a lower price.
If you don't like how this works, start the revolution and overthrow the capitalist system. Steve Jobs won't help you, and I doubt Google or Yahoo will either.
these record companies have a monopoly on distribution channels
Umm, what happened to this 'internet' people speak so much of around here?
So how do you like those business practices?
Not much, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA preventing copying of music.
The RIAA is actively trying to influence what is popular and what is not.
Why? What possible reason would they have? What earthly difference does it make to the RIAA if radio and CDs contain music of one style compared to another? As long as it sells? This is simple paranoia and musical snobbery. "My favourite music is better than yours, and everyone would love it if it wasn't for 'them' keeping it down."
I despise the whole concept of their business model
You'll have to explain this one for me, since you seem to be a business expert or something. What exactly is wrong with a business model that involves selling your product, not letting people have it for nothing, and using the law to enforce this? What would you suggest? Give it away? Hmmmm, not good business I'd say. Ask people nicely not to copy their product and actually pay for it? Tricky; people, as the discussion here proves, love something for nothing and will jump through endless hoops in order to morally justify it. Use physical violence? Problem with this being illegal, isn't there?
while at the same time overpricing physical content (CDs, etc)
If it was overpriced by definition it would not sell. No-one is forced into purchasing. CDs are not essential to life. The CDs sell, therefore by definition they are not overpriced.
trying to force digital outlets (iTunes, for example) to do the same.
Hold the front page! Commercial company in trying to maximize profits shock!!
Not to mention their attempts to 'sanitize' American radio (boy am I glad I dont live over there) so you can always find 500 different stations playing the same 10 pop tracks in rotation.
What the hell are you on about? Got any evidence for this? If American radio, which is an advertising driven industry, plays pap it's because people like to listen to pap, and advertisers like listeners. If anyone doesn't like the radio stations; don't listen to them.
but if they win this case, how much are they going to get? a few thousand?
No-one believes this is about the money suing this girl will get. No-one believes that this is RIAA's "business model". Like thousands of other legal cases it's about setting an example. You'd have to be a simpleton to think otherwise. This case says if you illegally download other's work without paying for it; you risk being taken to court. Sounds fair and straightforward to me.
I'm a fan of European EBM
How very nice for you. Others aren't. Market evidence suggests many more people are fans of the very music you claim is some sort of paranoid global plot to supress the masses. Grow up and understand that there is no 'good' music and no 'bad' music. There is only different tastes and opinions and your taste in music is no better or of any greater value than anyone elses. The RIAA business usually involves the music with mass appeal, because that's what is usually downloaded most. They aren't making any value judgements over what or who anyone should be listening to.
I agree that people should be fined a few hundred dollars or 3 or 4 times the retail cost of what they downloaded... Would they accept that? No, it's far too sensible:)
What makes you think the RIAA are in a position to hand out fines? The RIAA does not enforce the law. They have the process of suing as a tool to protect their copyrights, just like anyone else. The nature of this means it is a costly process that is not practical to apply to every case. The only sensible way forward is therefore use the legal cases as examples. Unless you are suggesting that the RIAA should be some sort of police force that can hand out spot-fines??? No, didn't think so.
So what genius modded this load of poorly thought-out drivel as 'insightful'?
Slashdot Mirror
In which case the market will determine this, as it always does. But it can't determine this as long as people are prepared to unfairly compare the legitimate product against the pirated. This normalizes the use of the pirated, making it ok to 'steal' a movie rather than pay for it. How many times do you see the argument put forward here that it's ok to file share stuff, because the bad old industry won't provide it at a fair price?
People want to watch movies on their TV, portable player, have the ability to make backup copies of their media and have the convenient delivery service of near instant electronic downloads without being charged both arms and both legs. Not too much too ask for is it? Unfortunately the movie studios think it is
No, not too much to ask. But as experience shows, as soon as people are given this they'll go further and start ripping the industry off by taking stuff for free. Not because they're being unfairly charged by the industry, but because they can. And then when the industry objects they're told tough luck, technology has moved on, time to update your business practices. The fact is; people like something for nothing. And as long as they're supplied with a half way plausable excuse to justify it, they'll do it.
Google, Red Hat, MySQL and a host of Open Source Software houses seem to be doing ok
Totally, totally diffent products and markets. How much money do you think can be made providing support for viewing a movie? ("Confused with a plot? Phone Movie-Doctor helpline now. We will identify the problem and patch in the latest script so you'll be back enjoying your blockbuster in no time!") How far do you think Hollywood would get trying to support itself with adverts? You willing to sit through an advert break in the middle of the film you bought? How many good films have you ever seen made by two dozen volunteers who've never met?
I think this displays the mindset on Slashdot, champion of open source. Because software can be produced this way, they think everything else can.
But what is it that the consumer really wants? By your argument what the consumer really wants is the DVD for free, months before the legitimate release, with the ability to pass it on for free to as many of their friends they like.
Are you expecting the movie industry to provide that? Are you seriously saying that any industry should be expected to compete competitively in a market against their own product being given away for nothing? Because, guess what, the industry actually producing the product and trying sell it at a profit is going to lose out in that particular comparison. It is not a fair market and demands that they match this are ridiculous.
Only once you compare the simulation to reality is anything proven. Hobbits on my computer prove nothing.
So you're suggesting that the law should be based on someone's evaluation of their own capabilities?
"I think I can handle talking on the phone while driving, therefore it's legal. It's those other scatter-brain guys who are the problem."
"I think I can have five drinks and still drive home safely, so it's legal. It's those other guys who can't handle their liquor that are the problem."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.h tm
GDP is meaningless in this debate. It doesn't include a whole raft of environmental and health negatives. We can sit snug and wealthy, happy that our GDP is energy efficient, but if we're turning the planet into a unlivable trashheap in the mean time it won't matter a whole lot in the long run, will it?
Efficient at what? Making tomorrow's landfill?
GDP is a really bad indicator to measure "planet-friendlyness" by because it conviently ignores all the dirty sides of production.
All the joys of usenet, in fact.
So CDs are a fraction of the cost they used to be. What was your point again?
It's right about here that your little tale falls apart, isn't it? By my reckoning in real terms music is the cheapest it's ever been. 20 years ago a CD could cost £15. Now it's rare to find one over that price. How much have other prices gone up in that same period? So where exactly are these increasing prices you speak of? You're not making them up are you??
Of course when you compare that with getting the music for nothing the prices are steep. But that would be the case in every industry and every product. People don't take the music industry's product for free because they thing they are being over-charged. They do it because people like something for nothing. As long as they think they can get away with it and can invent self-serving justifications for it.
And far from the market shrinking, it's expanding. Not a day seems to go by without another company offering online music sales. Online sales are booming, never been better. It would appear, amazingly, that the music industry know their market better than some 'Insightful' post on slashdot full of made up facts.
No it doesn't. Darwinism says absolutely nothing about the creation of the universe.
often it also evolves into a "why are we here" thing
No it doesn't. That is not a question that Darwinism makes any attempt to address.
Darwinism says there's no point to existance and death
No it doesn't.
You don't know the first thing about Darwinism, so your entire post is garbage.
I think you need to slow down a bit. It's your grammar that's the problem here. :)
Outrageous! How unlike other MPs in other communities who pay no heed of what their constituents think! It's this kind of sneaky "keeping on the good side of your voters" that's ruining our country!
Also, it's taken the police around 10 years to arrest Abu Hanza for charges relating to terrorism, while all the time they knew he was providing terrorism training courses.
That would be the kind of "knowing" that meant nothing about training courses was used to prosecute him.
Now, the victims of the London bombings (around 500) are planning to sue the government for incompentence for failing to arrest him sooner.
This is an unfounded statement. What evidence do you have that this is planned, and what evidence exists to connect Hanza to the bombings? Curiously, Scotland Yard believes there is none. What kind of conspiracy are you suggesting here?
I'm not supporting Hanza, he's a nut-case, but this kind of knee-jerk reaction and mindless smearing of entire communities and religions is exactly the kind of bollocks that causes paranoia and support for ID cards, as if they were some kind of solution to a poorly defined and unsubstantiated fear.
And what has this to do with immigration and ID cards??
Hmmm... what about catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland?
What about them?
Religion is one thing, at least, it is not suggested that the cards store. Your religious persuations have nothing to do with your identity, at least not in any way that uniquely identifies you. Not even Blair's government could make a case for this.
Well that statement makes no sense.
What has religion to do with immigration or race?
Are you suggesting that they are targetting christian religions?
Why is this entire gun control thread not modded off-topic?
The word for this is "free-loading" and its usually frowned on.
And the whole 'regular people' argument is as flimsy as ever. If movies are regularly ripped off then companies stop making as many. Whether they reach this decision because they're not making mega-profits anymore, or not isn't the issue. Film companies are not charities. They exist to make profits. No profits = no films. If they don't make as many, then 'regular people' don't get employed as much.
The similarity with open source is that here people have decided to make the fruits of their labour freely available. In just the same way that the likes of Peter Jackson has decided to make his not freely available (probably because it cost a hell of a lot to make). In both cases in our example some third party has decided to ignore the wishes of the creator of the work to suit themselves, and then posture some moral rationality that explains why, yes, of course, they should be allowed something for nothing.
Why is that not wrong?
Interesting definitions of "good people" and "working". I'd term them more as "enablers of piracy" and "copying others' work".
Typical flaming slashdot. If this guy was linking to software that ignored open licencing he'd be getting hate email. But because he's helping rip off others' work outside the computing industry he's some kind of hero.
Wow, that's easy! Where do all those hardware technicians get the nerve to charge for their work? You can learn to build a new one in only an hour! No risk! Infinite customability! You can learn at home and be earning big money within the week! Read about some of our success stories below!
Michael Dell, Austin
"I thought these work-from-home emails were all scams until I tried this one! Now I'm worth millions, if not billions! And all after only 1 hour's learning! It was that easy! I can over-clock too!!! Everyone should do this!"
Unfortunately is makes no sense at all to the end-user, unless of course they really need to buy some of this stuff. Most don't, so it's just annoying crap to them.
Dell make good, reliable machines (in my experience). But the first thing I always do is a complete re-install. The only other option is forever wondering about, worrying about and fighting against all the pre-install crud; 50% of which you don't want, 25% of which you've no idea what the hell it is (don't expect it to be mentioned in the documentation) and 25% you never knew was there to begin with.
It would never occur to me to buy a Dell without the install discs. Selling a system without them shouldn't be legal. It's like being sold a coat; but being sewn into it before you leave the shop because they don't want to supply you with a zipper.
This stupid practice ranks right up there with the annoying online software retailers who first take your money (through credit card or paypal) and then throw a whole lot of intrusive and compulsory questions at you before they'll let you download. Quit with the damn impertinent questions and give me the software I've paid for!
This looks nice, but could be completely useless too. Guess I'll never know now. They're not getting my credit card.
I didn't say that. The record labels will price their product where-ever it makes most profit. If that's .60, then so be it. If it's .99, then ditto.
The plan is to reach the illegal download market and one way of doing that is putting the cheaper cost in their face over and over and over again through ads.
I would suggest that no company can compete in a market with 'something for nothing'. This is why they have to use the force of law to try to stop illegal downloading.
However, you have no idea what the demand curve looks like at .50 cent for a song. Profit could triple at that cost making it a great move,
Indeed it might. Do you think record companies haven't consider this? If they thought that .50 would maximize long-term profits, then that's what they would price at.
I think that the record companies know far more about the music market than any of the self-appointed experts on slashdot mouthing off about "business models", as if they all have MBAs and better ideas.
No, that would be the actual cost. As I said, the price is determined by the market. If the market says people will pay .99 in sufficient numbers, then .99 is the price chosen. If you don't like this price, don't pay it. If enough consumers reach the same conclusion then the market will determine a lower price.
If you don't like how this works, start the revolution and overthrow the capitalist system. Steve Jobs won't help you, and I doubt Google or Yahoo will either.
Umm, what happened to this 'internet' people speak so much of around here?
So how do you like those business practices?
Not much, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA preventing copying of music.
The RIAA is actively trying to influence what is popular and what is not.
Why? What possible reason would they have? What earthly difference does it make to the RIAA if radio and CDs contain music of one style compared to another? As long as it sells? This is simple paranoia and musical snobbery. "My favourite music is better than yours, and everyone would love it if it wasn't for 'them' keeping it down."
You'll have to explain this one for me, since you seem to be a business expert or something. What exactly is wrong with a business model that involves selling your product, not letting people have it for nothing, and using the law to enforce this? What would you suggest? Give it away? Hmmmm, not good business I'd say. Ask people nicely not to copy their product and actually pay for it? Tricky; people, as the discussion here proves, love something for nothing and will jump through endless hoops in order to morally justify it. Use physical violence? Problem with this being illegal, isn't there?
while at the same time overpricing physical content (CDs, etc)
If it was overpriced by definition it would not sell. No-one is forced into purchasing. CDs are not essential to life. The CDs sell, therefore by definition they are not overpriced.
trying to force digital outlets (iTunes, for example) to do the same.
Hold the front page! Commercial company in trying to maximize profits shock!!
Not to mention their attempts to 'sanitize' American radio (boy am I glad I dont live over there) so you can always find 500 different stations playing the same 10 pop tracks in rotation.
What the hell are you on about? Got any evidence for this? If American radio, which is an advertising driven industry, plays pap it's because people like to listen to pap, and advertisers like listeners. If anyone doesn't like the radio stations; don't listen to them.
but if they win this case, how much are they going to get? a few thousand?
No-one believes this is about the money suing this girl will get. No-one believes that this is RIAA's "business model". Like thousands of other legal cases it's about setting an example. You'd have to be a simpleton to think otherwise. This case says if you illegally download other's work without paying for it; you risk being taken to court. Sounds fair and straightforward to me.
I'm a fan of European EBM
How very nice for you. Others aren't. Market evidence suggests many more people are fans of the very music you claim is some sort of paranoid global plot to supress the masses. Grow up and understand that there is no 'good' music and no 'bad' music. There is only different tastes and opinions and your taste in music is no better or of any greater value than anyone elses. The RIAA business usually involves the music with mass appeal, because that's what is usually downloaded most. They aren't making any value judgements over what or who anyone should be listening to.
I agree that people should be fined a few hundred dollars or 3 or 4 times the retail cost of what they downloaded... Would they accept that? No, it's far too sensible :)
What makes you think the RIAA are in a position to hand out fines? The RIAA does not enforce the law. They have the process of suing as a tool to protect their copyrights, just like anyone else. The nature of this means it is a costly process that is not practical to apply to every case. The only sensible way forward is therefore use the legal cases as examples. Unless you are suggesting that the RIAA should be some sort of police force that can hand out spot-fines??? No, didn't think so.
So what genius modded this load of poorly thought-out drivel as 'insightful'?