Slashdot Log In
RIAA Not Sharing Settlement Money With Artists
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Feb 28, 2008 06:08 PM
from the play-nicely-now dept.
from the play-nicely-now dept.
Klatoo55 writes "Various artists are considering lawsuits in order to press for their share of the estimated hundreds of millions of dollars the RIAA has obtained from settlements with services such as Bolt, KaZaA, and Napster. According to TorrentFreak's report on the potential action, there may not even be much left to pay out after monstrous legal fees are taken care of. The comments from the labels all claim that the money is on its way, and is simply taking longer due to difficulties dividing it all up."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I Wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
We're here to take your first born to our Vinyl Mines.
Parent
Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to ask to cover a song. You just have to let the relevant administrative body (APRA in Australia, I believe it falls to ASCAP et al. in America) know about any recording or performance you have done of it, so that the artist will be recompensed for your use of the song.
Parent
Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
A typical bar featuring music will typically pay ASCAP a recurring fee to cover the songs in that catalog and be allowed to perform any of them. You don't technically have to pay ASCAP a fee just because you have music, but you're in for a world of hurt if you get caught with an unlicensed performance of a covered work.
The big dirty secret here is that ASCAP doesn't tell anybody how it is that they distribute the license money. It's incredibly hard to know if relatively unknown artists are being compensated fairly.
"Live" performances are radio, TV, phone systems, intercoms and any other venue where the main use of the music is listening to rather than a copy of. Frequently places will just buy a license through a third party which pays the fees as well as provides the music itself to simplify the whole process. Muzak is one of the more common outfits that provides the service.
Parent
Re:I Wonder too... (Score:5, Informative)
The record label usually owns the sound recording copyright, although the artist can ask for it back after 35 years. This is the copyright which people are being sued for allegedly infringing upon.
If the artist did not write their own songs, they don't own any copyrights. The artists are paid according to the terms of their contracts. Unless there's a clause that deals specifically with this issue, the record label is under no legal obligation to give the artists a cut from the lawsuits.
Although this is more proof (as if we really needed it) that the RIAA lies every time it repeats the "it's all about the artists" mantra, I think that they are probably immune to being sued for it, except perhaps for the times they did it in a Senate or House subcommittee hearing or in court, and then only if they were under oath.
Parent
Of course it's coming! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course it's coming! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
T'was Ever Thus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:T'was Ever Thus (Score:4, Interesting)
This is as an attempt to screw me, the consumer, twice -- first, by raising the prices (which I accept while the copyright lasts, as long as the time limits are reasonable, and they stopped being so long time ago), and second by removing competition, usually by directly abusing legal system.
So, I am amused rather than heart-broken. Suck it, people, and before you call on lawyers to extortion for you, don't be surprised if you get extorted in turn.
Parent
Re:T'was Ever Thus (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:T'was Ever Thus (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Why is this not surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
...and the lawyers are friends/relatives (Score:5, Interesting)
Well....not so good if you're an artist, but any artist who still hasn't figured out what the RIAA is all about probably deserves it.
The only CDs I've paid for in the last couple of years were from places like CDBaby who state exactly how much the artist will receive for each CD sold. Worse, I've bought albums I didn't really like from CDBaby because that artist has made other albums which I did like. The reason was I wanted the artist to have some money but the RIAA had control of the album I liked.
Pissing off your paying customers? Not a good business model.
The main reason I share music these days is just to annoy the RIAA.
Parent
Agree 100% (Score:5, Interesting)
I still have a considerably large vinyl collection, + a shed-load of commercial (not copied) tapes (mostly dupes of the vinyl - for playing in the car) even though I now don't have a functioning record player.
I looked this evening & for e.g. I have Bat out of Hell on vinyl, tape & CD - bloody three times!!
But if I fire up a p2p client - I'm a criminal.
WTF?
Copyright infringement is not "illegal".
Parent
Is anyone surprised by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked... (Score:5, Funny)
makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
They have all the data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They have all the data... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Blame the RIAA's advanced storage methods (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, the uncertainly principle kicks in when you take a close look . . .
Parent
Re:They have all the data... (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh.
Some artist who's not a jackass should bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of the artists, claiming that they're owed $750 per successful litigation of a confirmed act of copyright infringement. Seeing as how the RIAA is determined to ram that valuation through the courts.
~Wx
Parent
Oh come on now (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh come on now (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh come on now (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's why other countries don't have punitive damages. Somehow civil matters got all mixed up in the USA. I guess
greed does that.
That is not why. Most countries that do not have punitive damage allowances in their laws are usually run by tyrants anyways. The idea of of punitive damages is to punish an entity enough so they think twice before they do it again, it's a civil punishment for a civil case where a criminal punishment should be enacted but cannot be for whatever reason.
You know what happens when tort reform runs rampant and punitive damages are out the window? Companies like Exxon can get away with murder by polluting an entire coastline and having only to pay 2 weeks worth of profit as a fine. This is not greed, this is not tort reform, this is justice gone wrong. Thanks to the tort reform in America Exxon has a punishment that does virtually nothing to a company which committed a criminal act. The amount they have to pay is a drop in the bucket compared to how much the citizens of Alaska have paid with their well-being. So perhaps it is the lack of a real punitive damage which is greedy!
Now I see what you mean when for instance, people who KNEW cigarettes would kill them continue to smoke and now tobacco companies are having to pay out the a** because of some jerk who took a KNOWN risk and then whined about it later but this is a law that needs refining, not a blanket statement that all punitive damages are greedy.
Parent
Re:Oh come on now (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if that is the case, the punitive part of the award should not go to the plaintiff.
all the best,
drew
Parent
Re:Oh come on now (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the RIAA wants and is getting their cake and eating it too. They want your music purchase to be treated as a product with no liabilities of a license (like discounted upgrades), but they want to restrict what you do with your purchase like a license. They want copyright infringement and its punishments to be considered a crime, but they want the standard of guilt used in civil cases. They want fines and settlements to be thought of as compensatory ("$billions in lost sales justify what we do"), but bring up the idea of sharing those compensatory awards with artists and suddenly it's punitive. Pick one, or the other. Don't flip flop whenever it's convenient to do so.
Parent
Hollywood Accounting (Score:5, Funny)
Once they are done with the proper accounting procedures, they will make sure to give the token penny or two to the "poor, starving artists".
share? why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's try again. At what point did they claim they were doing this to pay the arts for "lost profits"? There, that's it.
Re:share? why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a bit of a friendly nod to all those artists who were retarded enough to believe the record industry was somehow looking out for them:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Parent
On the plus side... (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, excellent point! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess they have internal lawyers but as the cases grow in numbers you need to hire out law firms which is not cheap. I don't know who they pay to collect the evidence, or to tell if someone is infringing but they have to monitor the P2P networks and I guess the torrents.
So by the end of the case lets say the defendant is given a infringement cost of $10,000 or something. They still have to pay it up.
What person in their right mind thought this was a good plan. Theres so many parties to deal with, so much time that needs to paid for. In the end all I see happening is a loss plus tarnishing the name of the RIAA. Hell, if the defendant wins then the RIAA might have to pay them. This seems like a strategy proposed from old-school business into a new-business world.
Re:Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Coming? (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, with all of the john-due suing that's apparently failed hard enough that the RIAA ends up paying attorney's fees [wired.com], I'd be surprised if there's anything left to divvy up.
Of course, it goes without saying that the RIAA's board of directors get their yachts first, too. Can't even think about dividing up the money until those get paid off.
How much do the artists REALLY get (Score:4, Insightful)
1. I remember reading somewhere that the money all went back into more lawsuits, so I don't think that is boding well for money going to anyone who thinks they actually "earned" it
2. Do the artists get the "real" damages (i.e., paid for the one or two songs mediasentry supposedly caught them downloading), or the higher damages? As I don't think the artist owns the copyright in this case, how much are they really entitled to?
3. For the settlement letters, is there again a set amount per song that they listed as being due the artist? Or is it again only the royalties they would get from selling one song on a cd or itunes for example? If so, please expect about $.05 per settlement - not what they want (or think they deserve, but as a recent article on slashdot pointed out, the RIAA wants to reduced royalties while they are at it).
If I was the artist, I wouldn't go buying a car with the expectation that the check was in the mail... not even a matchbox car.
Why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Musicians don't get money for record sales anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
Record companies benefit when you buy.
Musicians benefit when you listen.
Parent
RIAA and PR (Score:5, Interesting)
At present, it's largely a free lunch for the record companies - who have a vicious attack dog that uses tactics that shouldn't be legal. The bad PR doesn't do a very good job of reflecting back on them.
If the masses begin to associate these lawsuits with the music they're buying, that's when the pressure would mount.
Re:RIAA and PR (Score:4, Informative)
I prefer the convenience of a search engine like RIAA radar, but if you don't trust it, you could always go straight to the source [riaa.com].
Parent
Imagine all the problems... (Score:5, Funny)
We already knew this... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is completely fair (Score:4, Insightful)
In a legal war... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are you on about? (Score:5, Interesting)
Talking about it all the time just helps you with your cognitive dissonance and makes it okay that you steal music.
When will this foolish drivel have run its course?
You can bring the day closer by defining what you mean by "stealing music". No, please do not assume that we are smart. No one is smart enough to figure out a phrase that is intentionally vague and insulting at the same time.
Do we steal music when we make a copy? When we make the first copy? An unauthorized copy? An illegal copy?
Do we "steal" music when we perform it without proper authorization?
Do we "steal" it every time we listen to an illegally made recording? Every time we listen to a recording without compensating someone? And if so, who are we supposed to be compensating?
Are we "stealing" it when we make a copy for a friend who would never find about the artist, if not for us?
Are we "stealing" when we remove DRM? When we digitize? When we shift formats?
Are we "stealing music" when we replace our stolen CD collection by getting it off the Pirate Bay (doesn't cost fat cats a dime)? When we legally download it from a different country? When we obtain a copy of something that is no longer published? When the artist is dead? How about when the artist says that it is OK, even though he does not own the rights? Is it still "stealing"?
You see, we just don't seem to have a good grasp of the meaning of the term you insist on using.
If you want to say "stealing music" on Slashdot, out of all places, even though it makes no legal (or any other kind of) sense, why won't you bloody define it for us? Or may be just say "infringe the copyright" instead, if that is all you mean to say?
Parent
Re:What are you on about? (Score:4, Funny)
Gene Simmons, is that you???????????????
Parent
Re:What are you on about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent