Cuban Says RIAA Damages Should be $5 Per Month

Thomas Hawk writes "Mark Cuban is arguing over at Blog Maverick that with the introduction of Yahoo!'s new $5 per month music service that this needs to become the new de facto 'damages' that the RIAA ought to be able to claim when suing kids. After all, when the kids could have paid for the music via Yahoo! for $5 a month it makes it hard to say the music loss is worth more than that. 'The RIAA can no longer claim that students who are downloading music are costing them thousands of dollars each. They cant claim much of anything actually. In essence, Yahoo just turned possession of a controlled music substance into a misdemeanor. Payable by a $5 per month fine.'"

Upload, not download

[DustMagnet (453493)]

The RIAA doesn't sue downloaders. They sue people who upload music. Yes I know, some programs upload what you download by default, but that change what they sue people for. You can't get the right to upload music for $5 a month. Even if you could, the RIAA can always sue for statutory damages, which are a lot higher than $5 a month even for downloading.

Re:Upload, not download

[lukewarmfusion (726141)]

That's generally just because of the technology. First, it's possible to make a fair use defense based on your ownership of the CD or DVD. Second, uploading appears to be a bigger violation simply because you could be uploading to hundreds of people.

It cracks me up that you can get a small fine or few days in jail for shoplifting a CD, but downloading that same album online (with inferior quality!) can net you years of prison time and hundreds of thousands in fines!

Re:Upload, not download

[JVert (578547)]

Your may rob from the rich but i'll have your soul if you even think of giving to the poor!

Re:Upload, not download

[squiggleslash (241428)]

Well, it can, but it generally will not. I think more people (and days) have spent time in jail for shoplifting than for P2P-style piracy.

Generally though, you said it: the issue is one of damage. From the point of view of the recording industry, someone who distributes (directly and indirectly) one of their albums to millions (remember, I said directly and indirectly) of anonymous strangers is far, far, more damaging than someone who removes one copy of a CD from circulation without paying for it. From their point of view, the latter constitutes the removal of 2c of plastic from sale plus $5-10 (or so) in lost revenue (after retail margins etc.) The other constitutes, potentially, tens of thousands to millions of dollars in lost revenues through lost sales.

Which would you be more concerned about if you're heavily investing large quantities of money into funding the creation, recording, and promotion of music?

Re:Upload, not download

[shark72 (702619)]

"...and monopolizing all avenues of distribution, making sure that any artist who wants to have their music heard must go through one of the record labels."

Of which there are thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands. Some are big and huge and are members of the RIAA. Some are small and independent yet still belong to the RIAA. Some are small and independent and cool and don't belong to the RIAA. Some, like Magnatune [magnatune.com], are virtual. Some, like CDBaby [cdbaby.com], specialize in getting your stuff onto the legit download sites even if you're not signed to a traditional label. There's a ton of non-RIAA and unsigned music on the Apple iTunes Music Store.

It's your music... do what you want. If you want to get the potential of mammoth exposure and sales, in exchange for a loss of control and a much smaller portion of the selling price of your music, sign a recording contract with a big label. If you want a little more control and a bigger share of the profits, but with less of a budget, go with one of the cool indie labels. If you just want a little assistance but want to do most of the promotion yourself, try Magnatune or CD Baby. If you don't think the service that any of them provide is worth it, and you're lucky enough to have the means to record, produce, and promote your work yourself, then more power to you.

The fact is that in the record industry, just as in the software industry or a thousand other industries, nobody's going to give you a million bucks to do with as you please in creating and promoting your work, without wanting something back. Is this unfair? You bet. Can it make it tough? Of course. But this is not a "monopoly."

Re:Upload, not download

[aralin (107264)]

Is this unfair? You bet. Can it make it tough? Of course. But this is not a "monopoly."

Yeah, its a "cartel".

Re:Upload, not download

[maraist (68387)]

I think it's a little bit of both of you being right. I agree with you that you can take an independent path; the parent is technically incorrect since the RIAA or whatever doesn't have a monopoly.. But that's like saying MS didn't have a monopoly in the late 90's.. Yes there was DR DOS and Linux and SCO UNIX, and OS/2. But they were like 1% of the market.

Likewise, I'm sure the indi venue is an insignificant portion of the audience market but I have no numbers to back me up.

The music radio is mostly clear-channel. I'm sure Satalite radio is clear-channel controlled. MTV is certainly biased towards the establishment. The only large distribution you have left are sound-tracks of big-end movies. With the possible exception of indi-films that at least get a lot of spot-light, if not popularity.

The industry has calculated methods of maximizing profit; tuning various demographics to particular sounds and focusing on particular artists of the month to build sensationalism which causes people to flock to the fad-of-the-month and thus increase revenue. To facilitate this brainwashing, they need LOTS of airtime for their target projects, and this leaves no room for anything else.. With the consolidation of media outlets, the drive to "advertise" a particular label means even less airtime for variety.

So there IS an establishment that is trying to squash unsigned material, albeit indirectly through the reduction of avenues of distribution.

As a disclaimer, I have no association with the musical profession.

Re:Upload, not download

[stlhawkeye (868951)]

I think it's a little bit of both of you being right. I agree with you that you can take an independent path; the parent is technically incorrect since the RIAA or whatever doesn't have a monopoly.. But that's like saying MS didn't have a monopoly in the late 90's.. Yes there was DR DOS and Linux and SCO UNIX, and OS/2. But they were like 1% of the market.

I'm not arguing for or against a monopoly by the RIAA. I am arguing that this group of businesses does not automatically own all music created, and so "any artist" that wants to distribute his music in his own manner is free to do so.

Likewise, I'm sure the indi venue is an insignificant portion of the audience market but I have no numbers to back me up.

I have no idea either, but the indy market share isn't relevent to my point.

The music radio is mostly clear-channel. I'm sure Satalite radio is clear-channel controlled. MTV is certainly biased towards the establishment.

They have to be, they can only play the establishment's music by buying a license from a broadcast rights manage group like ASCAP, and if they're dickheads about the RIAA's behavior, they'll find their license expense crawling up. MTV is as much a slave to the content cartels as FM radio.

The only large distribution you have left are sound-tracks of big-end movies. With the possible exception of indi-films that at least get a lot of spot-light, if not popularity.

If you want large-scale distribution then your choices are limited. If you want millions and millions of people to hear your music then you are at the mercy of distribution channels that can potentially reach millions and millions of people. The internet is my personal favorite.

The industry has calculated methods of maximizing profit;

Any prudent business should, yes.

tuning various demographics to particular sounds and focusing on particular artists of the month to build sensationalism which causes people to flock to the fad-of-the-month and thus increase revenue. To facilitate this brainwashing, they need LOTS of airtime for their target projects, and this leaves no room for anything else.. With the consolidation of media outlets, the drive to "advertise" a particular label means even less airtime for variety.

In other words, they saturate the masses with cookie-cooker schlock and the masses eat it up. This has been happening for as long as there has been art and isn't a phenomenon unique to big business. Note: I am not exonerating big business for any wrong-doing. I hate big corporations as much as the next day.

So there IS an establishment that is trying to squash unsigned material, albeit indirectly through the reduction of avenues of distribution.

I don't think they're actively trying to squash unsigned material, because they could buy out almost anybody they wanted. If your material was so good that they were potentially losing millions in sales off your stuff, they'd have come up (in most cases) with enough money to turn the pupils of even the most principled artist into dollar signs. Everybody has high standards about how money should trade hands when they aren't the ones earning it.

I don't think the attempt to destroy the P2P networks is based on squelching unsigned talent either. They really do believe that they're losing money off of it. They're idiots, of course, because assuming P2P is the root of the problem, will banning it solve the problem? No. Will copy protection and DRM solve it? No.

As a disclaimer, I have no association with the musical profession.

Nor do I. I think you missed part of my point. I was countering this idea that if I want to hand out my music to anybod who wants to hear it, I can't because of the RIAA. This just isn't true. They don't own all music in the world.

I don't agree with them, their tactics, their close relationship to our congressional representatives, their at

Re:Upload, not download

[AviLazar (741826)]

First, it's possible to make a fair use defense based on your ownership of the CD or DVD.

"Your honor, yes I know I allowed 5000 people to download music from my computer...but I own the original CD" holds up CD "so it falls under the fair use law."

Then the kids defense attorney rises "Your honor, as you can see, we would like to plead mental insanity. This kid is a fucking moron."

Re:Upload, not download

[jfengel (409917)]

Mostly that your public playing on a boombox is a transitory event. You play it, it's over. A perfect copy of an MP3 is forever.

That's what they have to sell: the ability to hear the songs whenever you want. That used to be a working business model, since not many people owned the ability to make reasonable copies.

Now that they do, it sounds like they have two choices. They can either ask people to play by the expected rules of their old business model, before the technology changed out from under them, or they can make a new business model.

If it is your right to buy a CD and then make perfect copies for the entire world, they'll just have to raise the price of that CD. Say, a few hundred thousand dollars. Fine with them. As long as they sell a copy or two, they're making the same money.

Probably just one, to some guy who'll share it with everybody else. But he'll probably try to make back his investment, so he'll probably charge you. And he'll probably put some DRM on it. The guy's name is Steve Jobs.

Of course you'd be welcome to buy a copy, too, and kick that Jobs guy in the butt. How many CDs fit in your CD budget?

Re:Upload, not download

[Perl-Pusher (555592)]

Your missing the point. Uploading you can say the RIAA is out thousands of dollars because concievably you caused them a lack of sales. But downloading only denies them one, the downloader. Now the press and some juries may be dumb enough to award damages. But any good laywer could reduce the damages to sale price and a penalty fine.

Serving, not uploading

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

It's like burning a copy a CD, destroying, the original, and saying, "This one isn't a copy, I don't have the original any more."

Making a backup is also making a copy. Are you meaning to say that I don't have the right to use my backup if my original gets destroyed? Next you'll be saying that I can't make a backup of that backup, even after the original is destroyed.

The symbol for copyright should be a burning candle with a cage of barbed wire around the flame, symbolizing that though you could light your candle at mine without diminishing mine's light, I'm still not going to let you copy my fire.

Re:Upload, not download

[fucksl4shd0t (630000)]

You guys are all missing the point.

In order for the RIAA to go after *downloaders*, they'd have to *upload* to the downloaders. That makes their case something more like entrapment, I'll let a lawyer chime in with the specific term. Basically, how could the RIAA sue someone for downloading from them? Didn't they give permission to download when they posted it for upload?

I think that would undermine their case and a good lawyer could get it thrown out on that.

So instead they go after uploaders, because all they need to do for that is take their hacked client, connect to the network, search for the artist they've chosen to protect, then run a script that browses all the users and identifies the largest repositories, then crawl those repositories, take the IP address to the court for the subpoena, and go from there.

It's pretty obvious why they go after uploaders. :)

Re:Upload, not download

[joeljkp (254783)]

Downloading is unauthorized copying, while uploading is unauthorized distribution. Both are outlawed in Title 17.

You're right, though, the difference is in the severity.

Re:Upload, not download

[Em Adespoton (792954)]

You seem to have missed the point; downloading is not copying; it is receiving an already copied work. The server is doing the copying, not the client. The violator is the person doing the copying.

Copyright is about distribution, not about reception. All a copyright holder can do to a person who illegally receives a copy of their work is inform them that the person they received it from did not have the right to distribute, and ask them to return/destroy it.

The person illegally receiving the work does not legally have to do what they ask. Morally is a different issue. It could be argued that the person receiving the work was a party to the copying, if they intentionally asked the distributor to make the copy, in full knowledge that it would be an illegal copy. However, this argument is extremely tenuous.

See my illustration above about singing/listening to music.

The violator is the person copying the music. It is true that it doesn't matter who it is; if you don't personally have permission from the copyright holder, you are committing copyright infringement. If you are receiving the work, you are not receiving stolen goods; you are receiving information, which cannot be classified as "stolen" as your posession of it does not keep others from having it.

Let's use yet one more illustration. Company X makes a certain brand of carbonated sugar water. Company Y sneaks in and copies their recipe, and then distributes it to anyone who asks for a copy. Who is in breach of copyright law? Company Y, who made the copies. Anyone else found with a copy is not in violation unless they too made and distributed copies.

Where it gets sticky is this next step. What happens when the those who received illegal copies of the recipe decide to "perform" it? The common way to do this would be by producing an identical drink, and serving it to the public. Copyright law states that this is also a violation. However, using the recipe for personal consumption of the drink is legal, as is posessing a copy of said recipe.

Taking this illustration back to the digital world, the following activities are copyright infringement:

• giving someone a copy of a song/movie/piece of software/other electronic document (web page etc.) without the permission of the creator or current copyright holder*

• showing/performing an interpretation of a song/movie/piece of software/other electronic document (web page etc.) without the permission of the creator or current copyright holder*

*other than prescribed by Fair Use rights, which allow for parodies, personal (family) use (no external distribution), educational research and a few other exceptions (such as specific types of archiving), which are generally on a situation-by-situation basis.

Actual implementation of copyright law is not as cut and dried as I've laid it out here; there are other exceptions and interpretations, but this is much closer to reality than what the general public has been convinced of by the corporate US.

Remember that every time you view a copy of a news release someone has pasted into a Slashdot comment, the original poster and Slashdot are both guilty of the same copyright infringement that covers MP3s -- and in the same way, you are not guilty of copyright infringement just because you read it here.

Re:Upload, not download

[rainman_bc (735332)]

I've said this before and I'll say it again ... like it or not, if it's against the law, it's against the law (unless you're Canadian eh!).

How many stupid laws do I have to look up for you to believe that not all laws are created with wisdom and good intentions?

Remeber prohibition. Some civil disobedience never hurt anyone.

Just note that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Jailing more people obviously isn't solving your problems.

Re:Upload, not download

[Bradee-oh! (459922)]

Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a P2P network where you become an uploader (of specific chunks) the moment you start downloading? And when you finish downloading the file, most people leave it shared by default and you are now an uploader?

I understand that BitTorrent is a little different because there is an original seeder but after enough time it turns into a big P2P network just like Emule... errr.... Edonkey.

I know they target those who are the "big" uploaders, who share thousands of songs. But I'd wager that their standards for "big uploaders" are getting looser and looser and if the continue to see success with their current strategy, before long their standards will point to the "average joe P2P user." What happens then?

Re:Finding First Uploader, Counting Uploads

[gregmac (629064)]

BitTorrent is much fuzzier, because except for the first seeder, individual clients aren't uploading and downloading entire files - they're uploading and downloading small chunks, so rather than uploading 5 copies of a 1GB movie, one to each of 5 people, you might have uploaded 5GB of total stuff spread out over 25 people.

Some P2P applications do this as well. It raises a good question though -- what happens when you're only uploading small chunks? Is it still infringing because it's still part of the song?

What would happen if a P2P client broke files down into really small chunks so you download non-sequential chunks (though all at once, to save overhead) from different sources.. Each individual person would NOT be uploading actual music (if you tried to play the individual upload stream, it would either not work or be random garbage), they'd be uploading essentially random streams of data. Once you had all these random streams from different sources, you could reassemble it back into a song.

Re:Finding First Uploader, Counting Uploads

[cpt kangarooski (3773)]

Either direct infringement (it's often infringement even when you copy just a very small part of a work), or contributory infringement, since you're working with a lot of other people to, in sum, infringe.

That you'd consider this kind of indicates that you're treating the law as a machine, which can be spoofed. This is a mistake; there are human beings involved, and they're often fairly smart, too. Your scheme is so very simple that it is no work at all to see through. I'd watch it with the whole pride thing.

You may also be interested to read the essay "What Colour Are Your Bits?" [sooke.bc.ca].

Re:Upload, not download

[Bradee-oh! (459922)]

How would such a tax work when there is a very large proportion of ISP subscribers who don't and will never download media illegally? I have a feeling those users would be up in arms about it.

I understand that in Canada and a few other nations there is an excise tax on blank media to account for the potential piracy. It doesn't resolve the problem completely - people who have only legitimate uses for the blank media still pay the tax. But people with a computer and a CD-R drive don't have to pay the tax. And you only pay the tax in proportion to how much blank media you use. PLUS, the tax is relatively small for average-joe-burner. How do we implement such a "more fair" system for downloading media?

We make only the music downloaders pay the "tax" which, in this case, would be a $5/mo fee for Yahoo! music or the fee for another music provider of your choice.

this guy is on drugs

[Blymie (231220)]

Wow.

This guy is about as bright as a 5 watt bulb.

It is like he does not even understand the reason that the RIAA is able to sue for thousands. The premise in court is (right or wrong) that the Music Industry is losing thousands per filesharer, for a specific reason. That is, each song available for download is being downloaded by thousands of people, and each of those downloads costs the RIAA membership the sale of a CD. Thousands of downloads * CD sale = mucho cash.

Again, this is the premise that would be followed in court.

Changing the price of a music from $CD_PRICE to $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE simply means that someone making files available, would be liable for $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE now. In other words, $num_of_users_downloading * $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE.

How is this ruining the RIAA in court? It only reduces the amount of damages per COUNT of people downloading.. that's all....

Put another way, the RIAA is not suing because you did not buy music. It is not suing the people that downloaded music. It is suing the people that _shared_ music, and setting the price accordingly.

Again, right or wrong, that's what happening. It's almost like this guy thinks people are being sued for downloading. They aren't. If they were, the RIAA could only sue for what they had lost in revenue, and that would be the cost of the songs the sued downloaded.

No, they sue from a much bigger angle. They sue with the claim that file sharers have cost them thousands of CD sales...

Re:this guy is on drugs

[bobcat7677 (561727)]

Just want to clarify... you mean a 5 watt INCANDESANT light bulb right? ...Because a 5 watt incandesant bulb would be pretty dim while 5 watt fluorescent bulb would actually be considerably brighter in comparison. And then there are 5 watt LED bulbs...

This is slashdot after all. Please be specific about the technologies you refer to. :D

Re:this guy is on drugs

[Bamafan77 (565893)]

Well, Cuban specifically only refers to what he calls "possession of a controlled music substance" , which presumably is different from dealing a controlled music substance. In the former, he's right. And since the former is the only thing he refers, I guess you could just say that he's right.

There's going to be some people who interpret the content of the blog the same as you and come to your conclusion. There will be others who intrepret the blog the same as you, and come to the opposite conclusion. But in the end, you both will be basing your opinions on bad data. He's effectively repositioned the argument right under your noses, and you and many other highly rated posters are all a-buzz...over nothing.

Politicians use subtle tactics like these to confuse us poor proles all the time. I can see how the guy became a billionaire now. What's a cynic to do in a world like this? :)

Cuban is no idiot

[Infonaut (96956)]

He's effectively repositioned the argument right under your noses..."

Cuban is no idiot. He knows that the way to change things is to control the structure of the argument. The music industry has managed to paint their struggle for continued control as a fight between them and "evil music thieves," and now Cuban is reframing the argument so it revolves around the music industry's pricing policies.

Anyone who forms their opinion about music filesharing's effect on the music industry and on creativity solely on the basis of Cuban's comments is a bit dim. But that doesn't diminish the worth of what he's doing by shifting the argument. He's using the broad reach of his blog to re-think the big picture.

First sale

[tepples (727027)]

If I sold my Mustang to you could I get sued by Ford for it? If not, why not?

The first sale doctrine applies in both patent law and copyright law. Ford can't sue used car dealers for patent infringement because the first sale of a patented article to the public exhausts the exclusive right to resell that article. Likewise, you have the right to resell a lawfully made CD on which copyrighted works are recorded.

That doesn't compute.

[k96822 (838564)]

That is like saying the most a person can be fined for stealing a shirt from WalMart is the price of the shirt.

Re:That doesn't compute.

[benjamindees (441808)]

Actually the logic is completely correct. But you're confusing "fines", which are the result of criminal prosecution, with "damages", which are the result of civil suit.

Damages are usually limited to "actual" losses, which is exactly "the price of the shirt". Fines can be much more, but they're exacted by government, not industry cabals (see Blockbuster).

Re:That doesn't compute.

[nasor (690345)]

Not at all. "Punitive damages" are quite common in civil suits. Punitive damages are fines that exceed the actual damage done to the victim, with the intent being to punish the offender and deter them (and others) from committing similar offenses in the future.

Say I own a company that sells dangerous products. They injure some of their users, so I have to pay $X/year in damages due to lawsuits. Now, if it would cost me more than $X/year to fix my product, it would be in my best interests to just continue injuring people and then paying them in court rather than making my product safe. Courts often award punitive damages in such situations, as an incentive for the defendant to stop doing whatever it is that they're getting sued for. The same logic applies here; if you only had to pay the actual cost of an illegally-downloaded song, there would be no incentive to ever legally purchase a song; at worst, I'll get caught and have to pay the price that I would have paid in a store anyway.

The RIAA doesn't compute either

[WebCowboy (196209)]

If RIAA ran Walmart it wouldn't have shoplifters prosecuted for theft, it would launch ridiculous civil suits against them.

If you stole a shirt from RIAA's Walmart, it would sue you $14.95 in loss/damages plus $1.5 million for pain, suffering, legal costs, etc.

I agree that Cuban's logic is flawed, but I might amend the argument. RIAA has tried to sue for silly amounts, somewhere along the lines of $2500 per song. I believe that the defendant could argue that since there is a legal $5/month service from Yahoo that a more resonable assessment would be $5 * number of months known to offend * a reasonable estimate of the number of people who got songs from your PC in a given month. It is that last factor that is different from Cuban's argument--unfortunately what a reasonable estimate is debatable.

So instead of these dumb multi-million lawsuits against teenage girls and grandparents that do nothing but make bad PR and settlemsnt at a small fraction of the original amount you'd do something like this:

$5 * 6 months * 500 USERS (not songs) uploaded to in a given month is...$15000. I'd bet that in most cases it is much less than 500 unique users who get all or part of a file from your machine when logged into P2P. In any case $15K is mcuh less ridiculous than millions but still enough to remind the offenders that it is wrong.

BTW, comapring copyright infringement to shoplifting isn't really accurate either because despite what RIAA says, violating copyright is NOT THEFT. When you steal a shirt you are denying the victim the use of said shirt. When you download music the artist (or more likely the publisher) still owns the rights and paying customers can still hear the music. Just to make it clear...

DOWNLOADING MUSIC IS *NEVER* STEALING...

HOWEVER...it IS violationg copyright... AND VIOLATING COPYRIGHT IS ALSO WRONG.

The problem is that RIAA et al want to prosecute people for copyright infringement much more harshly than deserved--more than what some people get for things like theft, assault and rape. A reality check is required for people all around.

Oh...now I get it.

[187807 (883881)]

After reading the title I was wondering why the RIAA would care what someone in Cuba thinks.

Cubans

[iBran (763687)]

Who do those Cuban people think they are, telling American companies what to do!?

Re:Cubans

[travellingmonk (884671)]

Who do those Cuban people think they are, telling American companies what to do!?

I had an image of Castro standing there with a cigar in one hand, iPod in the other, telling everyone that music was the property of the people and so everyone should be able to download songs for free...

Re:Cubans

[AvantLegion (595806)]

>> I had an image of Castro standing there with a cigar in one hand, iPod in the other, telling everyone that music was the property of the people and so everyone should be able to download songs for free...

I was having the exact same image, except he falls down on stage afterwards...

Well, sort of.

[SocialEngineer (673690)]

The main people the RIAA are going after are the SHARERS - the people who have hundreds, dare I saw thousands of songs in their shared folder, and are on a high-speed connection. 5 dollars per month per each individual person who downloaded from that one person is probably a little more what the RIAA would be after, if they had to affix something like that to the cost.

Two things

[merlin_jim (302773)]

1. You have to take into account everyone that could have gotten the file from someone when talking about lost revenue

2. The purpose of the fine is a) to recoup lost revenues and b) to discourage people from breaking the law

While the value of 2a might have gone down, that doesn't really affect 2b.

Mark Cuban is the Best!

[Egorn (82375)]

The RIAA couldn't manage a Dairy Queen.

disingenuous if I understand it correctly

[brontus3927 (865730)]

I thought subscription based services like Rhapsody and Yahoo were just streaming. If you want to acutally download the song and listen to it from somewhere else than your internet-connected computer, you had to pay an additional fee ($.79/song in Yahoo's case) I mean, if I could actually DOWNLOAD an unlimited amount of music and listen to it on all my PCs, on an mp3 player, and burn it to CD to listen in a car, for $5/month or even $20/month I'd jump at the chance. But I'm not going to pay $5/month for the privelege of listening to music and the ability to pay more to buy it.

Neat...

[geoffspear (692508)]

Can I set up a new cable network that broadcasts all of the Maverick's games if I pay them the cost of a season ticket? Sounds fair to me.

No one knows if the RIAA really has a case

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

No one knows if the RIAA really has a case...

...until they win a judgement in court that stands up under appeal.

Until then it's all threats and scares.

Rental vs. Ownership

[treerex (743007)]

The argument doesn't hold up.

These pay-per-month services are rentals: you stop paying and you no longer have access to the music (though I suppose its only a matter of time, if it hasn't happened already, before someone cracks the DRM in these rental services). With iTMS you own the track you've paid US$0.99 for. It's yours.

People forget this, or don't think about it. Hilary Rosen's recent drivel [huffingtonpost.com] makes the same mistake when she complains about iTMS lockin while saying how great Rhapsody or Napster or Yahoo! or whatever is. Of course, you're locked into those too. Anyway.

No Lawsuits Yet

[johnos (109351)]

AFAIK, the RIAA has yet to actually obtain a judgement in any end-user lawsuit. That they can successfully sue at all is far from clear at this point. Indeed, with the exception of the Napster suit, the RIAA has yet to prevail in a single hearing, much less a trial. So far, people have settled, or the suit has yet to reach trial. To date, the RIAA is batting .000 in court on end-user lawsuits.

Cuban may well be right about the proper amount for damages, but that assumes judgement. At the start, anyone can sue anybody for any sum. For example, SCO's multi-billion dollar suit against IBM. I think we can all agree SCO won't get billions. Likewise, the RIAA would probably get less than they are asking IF they won at trial, and IF a judge agreed to impose damages. Both of those eventualities are speculative at this point.

I don't think he looking at the bigger

[Enrique1218 (603187)]

I am not defending the RIAA or their actions. I do believe people have the right to make off their ideas and thus, I respect copyright. I believe the technology grew too fast and majority of consumers haven't related to the ethical problem yet. Thus, I believe the proper response should be education first then punitive action. However, with punitive action, $5 for every month of infraction is too low. With P2P and torrent, the downloader becomes the uploader. With desktops and always-on broadband, these programs could run for days at a time. Take a one person with 600 pirated songs, he has $600 worth of music. If a hundred people download just %10 of his collection, he just distribute illegally $6000 worth of songs. I would guess this could happen in just a few days. Imagine, how many songs he distributes in the course of a year. Thus, $5/month is too low and would be ineffective if punitive action is being used.

Copyright Damages Are More Complex

[werdna (39029)]

The argument is ok so far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far at all.

Regrdless whether the plaintiff suffers any damages at all, and regardless whether the defendant obtains any unjust enrichment from the infringing content, a plaintiff may still elect to obtain statutory damages. The jury gets to determine the amount of statutory damages, but that determination can be no less than $750 PER WORK INFRINGED.

This exceeds $5 per month.

I disagree

[AviLazar (741826)]

While I dislike the RIAA/MPAA just like the next /.'er, I wholly disagree with this story writers pricing assessment. Part of being sued and penalized for doing something bad is paying a penalty fee. For example: If a company wronged you and you were injured. You do not just sue them for your medical bills (boy does the health insurance industry wish this was the case) - you sue them for more money above and beyond.

So while we hate the stupid prices, and the DRM's - I at least cannot say it is morally right to give the music I bought to strangers on the internet (or to download them).... As such when they sue - yes they can sue for more. I do not know how much is more valid - but $5/month is not an acceptable price.

Though the RIAA/MPAA is suing uploaders, not downloaders.

Re:cuban eh?

[kryogen1x (838672)]

I remember seeing a user on slashdot with the name FidelCastro. But it wasn't him that submitted it.

Re:RIAA

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

It's called "punative" damages. That money is intended to deter people from the act of theft. (Similar to the fines charged to speeders.) If punative fines didn't exist, then someone might figure that they would only have to pay for stuff that they were caught stealing.

Re:RIAA

[stlhawkeye (868951)]

It's called "punative" damages. That money is intended to deter people from the act of theft. (Similar to the fines charged to speeders.) If punative fines didn't exist, then someone might figure that they would only have to pay for stuff that they were caught stealing.

No, that is not what punitive damages are for. They are not a deterrant, they are specifically intended as an additional punishment for notably egregious, willful, or wanton violation of the law.

Re:First off somebody has to share for people to D

[Anita Coney (648748)]

I don't know if you realize, but that 5 dollars per month has to be paid EVERY month. Once you stop paying, the collection is worthless. On the other hand, with P2P songs you get to keep them forever.

Second, they will not play on iPods, only certain Microsoft backed "Play for Sure" devices.

Third, free is still cheaper than $3000, assuming you're 20 and live another 50 years.

Fourth, P2P files are unencumbered with any DRM. Thus, you're getting more value for NO money.

Re:The world is geting smaller...

[xiando (770382)]

Actually, buying music from allofmp3 may equal stealing, depending on what country you are in. The fact that you are paying a Russian company money does not make it legal to download the songs from countries ruled by plutocracies (like the USA). If the download service you are using does not have the proper right to sell citizens of your country the music then you might as well be downloading it from any common peer to peer service.

Re:The world is geting smaller...

[chrisbro (207935)]

Here's an awesome writeup [msn.com] of the legal issues surrounding allofmp3. Probably not legal, but probably not dangerous to use, either.