Slashdot Log In
5 Years of RIAA Filesharing Lawsuits
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Fri Sep 05, 2008 04:37 PM
from the at-least-we-have-lots-of-stories dept.
from the at-least-we-have-lots-of-stories dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "David Kravets of Wired.com, who provided in-person gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Capitol v. Thomas trial last year, takes stock of the RIAA's 5-year-old litigation campaign, concluding it is 'at a crossroads', and noting that 'billions of copies of copyrighted songs are now changing hands each year on file sharing services. All the while, some of the most fundamental legal questions surrounding the legality of file sharing have gone unanswered. Even the future of the RIAA's only jury trial victory — against Minnesota mother Jammie Thomas — is in doubt. Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.'"
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Of course it's a failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a position not shared by 90% of your customers, and you're guaranteed failure. It really doesn't matter what the law says is right. It's economics, and the RIAA has failed or will fail, one way or the other.
Of course it's a failure-Stardock. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this guy said it best [sinsofasolarempire.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: >>> Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.
Well.
Duh.
The War on Bittorrent has been as much a failure as the War on Drugs or the Prohibition on Alcohol. People want their pleasures, and no amount of threats is going to stop them from acquiring want they desire. Gov't and corporate entities need to find a more effective solution to deal with these problems:
Drugs/Alcohol - legalized but strictly regulated w/ severe punishment for abusers (DUI)
Bittorre
Can't call it a failure (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything that takes in that much money can't be called a failure. It's wishful thinking to say otherwise. Judges are still finding in their favor, and nobody has been able to put a stop to their extortion racket yet. Their lawsuit racket is a machine that requires practically no work, and takes in thousands of dollars per victim. A thousand letters go out, and a couple of million dollars come back in. Hardly a failure.
It's immoral, and we hope that mainstream non-geek people will see it eventually...but currently, as much as it pains me to say so - it's a win for them. A big one.
If we convince ourselves that we've won and walk away when we haven't - then we are the ones who've lost. So let's not say what we hope things are. Let's say what they really are, and go from there.
Parent
Of course it's piracy. (Score:3, Funny)
They have failed repeatedly. They just have loads of money and can just keep failing over and over until they run out. When will that be?
Hey! Let's leave Microsoft out of this.
The legality of file sharing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The legality of file sharing? (Score:5, Funny)
File Sharing is WRONG! Think of all the unborn children of todays artists, that won't be able to ride the coattails of what their parents have done. Who will have to go out and get jobs and work for most of their lives. All because you won't pay for the songs their parents have written and recorded, and keep paying for those songs 70+ years after they have died.
There no longer is any money to be made creating music because of YOU!
I predict the entire music industry will be force to close up shop in 2-3 years tops. Then there will be no new music for anyone! And it's your fault!
Parent
Re:The legality of file sharing? (Score:4, Funny)
That's cool. My 200 Gb. music collection will see me through the dark times.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The content of most files downloaded is always questionable.
Almost missed your smilie!
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.
And many are not wondering anymore. The ultimate failure of DRM was predicted a few years ago on these very forums. Thanks for playing anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ultimate failure of DRM was predicted a few years ago on these very forums.
Please. Back when it was called "copy protection," its ultimate failure was predicted 25-30 years ago on forums that are now defunct and lost to time.
Don't drink and download. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.'""
Prohibition.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see your prohibition, and raise you two streisand effects.
NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Insightful)
(seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Funny)
seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
Oh the irony!
Parent
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Funny)
...laughing my a$$ off! I wish I had mod points!
Or would I just waste them on some other comment?
Parent
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Funny)
But why do I ask those questions?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
They end with questions because the submitters know that without a question to discuss nobody would bother commenting on the story. Really kinda an insult to the intelligence of every slashdotter - I can think of some part of your submission to discuss without the need for a prompt.
Re: (Score:2)
... thanks, not only for the objective insight which permeates much of your postings, nor the informative summaries that accompany your submissions, nor even for the occasional comedic relief provided by your dry wit, but for writing a summary that *doesn't* end in a rhetorical question. (seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
That's a damnable lie. Sometimes they end with questions that aren't rhetorical at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The person who suggested that I do it to provoke reader interest doesn't know me very well. I'm much too unsophisticated for that level of planning.
"Wondering?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasnt there a story a while back saying that they'd made like $140million in total from filesharing lawsuits?
This amount included the settlements against Napster etc.
The recording artists involved in the Napster case were suing the RIAA because they'd not seen a single cent of it.
Either way, I'm sure they (the RIAA) see it as a success as most of the people sued so far have settled without a fight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wasnt there a story a while back saying that they'd made like $140million in total from filesharing lawsuits? This amount included the settlements against Napster etc. The recording artists involved in the Napster case were suing the RIAA because they'd not seen a single cent of it.
Not sure how I missed it the first time around but yeah, there was [torrentfreak.com].
It would be pretty hilarious if the RIAA got sued into oblivion by the very artists they claim to "protect".
Re: (Score:2)
Would you? Why..? You've seen how they calculate their losses "every download is a lost sale," what makes you think their calculations for returns are likely to be any more sane? Though they might have comedic value...
Re: (Score:2)
I know, replying to my own comment...I didn't realise how redundant I was being 'til I saw it on the page...curses..! ;)
What doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some?! Wondering?! To date they've convinced the internet audience they so desperately wanted that the entire music industry, most telecoms companies, and quite a few governments are a parade of cash-guzzling corporation-fellating litigation-whores, and done absolutely nothing to peer-to-peer file sharing itself. Where is there any room for doubt as to its failure? It's like trying to give a guy CPR, but realising after hours of effort that you've brutally beaten the guy and his entire living bloodline to death with their own shoes instead.
Re:What doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Pretty much fail (Score:5, Insightful)
If they meant to reduce file sharing, total failure there as there's been no slowdown. If they meant to give back to the artists, failure on their part as any winnings/settlements has only gone to fund more litigation. Not only that, they only have one substantive win which may be declared a mistrial as the judge reconsiders his orders to the jury.
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
Re:Pretty much fail (Score:5, Insightful)
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
Actually, faliure or success depends on your viewpoint.
From the viewpoint of stopping piracy the failure is total. However, from the viewpoint of the companies hired to monitor and pollute p2p networks, its been a financial success, they've made many millions. Lawyers too, they've raked it in.
So failure is a matter of viewpoint. Hell, if I could have come up with some crackpot way to 'end piracy' I'd have sold it to them too and walked away richer, fully aware that all I sold them was snake oil.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure that it was a failure. The RIAA affiliates have raked in an obscene amount of cash and won the only case to go through a full trial.
They weren't realistically going to stop sharing, but they did manage to turn it into a business model. Which as disgusting as it is to me, is some degree of success. I highly doubt that they would be continuing with this if they weren't making money at it.
What viewpoint? (Score:5, Funny)
If you go on a backpacking trip and you are eaten by a bear, the fact that the bear is no longer hungry does not mean that your trip is not a failure.
Benefits of companies hired to attack P2P are irrelevant to RIAA's campaign outcome, which is ultimately to increase profits. Since they paid a lot of money to third parties and got nothing, it is a failure.
Parent
A failure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on your perspective... definitely not a failure for the trial attorneys billing by the hour.
Nostalgia (Score:3, Insightful)
It Never Was... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some are wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm...nothing's changed in 5 years, RIAA has no slam-dunk victories to show for it, thousands upon thousands of customers pissed off to the point of not buying music at all anymore, only a few million bucks extorted from victims, despite claims of billions lost....
Well, I'm NOT wondering if it's an "utter failure".
the RIAA whinging parts (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA members have deliberately and directly avoided properly serving their customers for well over a dozen years. They have actively engaged in a campaign of tampering with both the laws and the laws' execution. They actively attack and extort those members of society least able to defend themselves, including total innocents, with ridiculous claims similar to common street thugs. One wonders what RIAA is going to do if avoidance or legal confrontation are replaced by outright vigilantism. I've seen this in other countries and the history books in other situations.
Not really a failure (Score:4, Insightful)
...if you view their goals and their audience accurately.
I argue that they didn't want to stop file sharing. Or they did want it, but didn't expect to succeeded at such an endeavor.
The purpose of this was to make filesharing seem like a small scale threat that could easily be dealt with by a campaign of lawsuits. Most of the investors in the RIAA have no idea how the recording industry works let alone why the internet is such a giant threat to it.
These lawsuits were a smokescreen to stop shareholders from realizing the record label's business model had failed. Any survival at all would involve massively reduced profit margins. If they had realized that, shareholders would have bailed from the recording industry en masse.
The goal of this legal campaign was to buy a few extra years for the the Hillary Rosens and the Jack Valentis of the world to quietly divest themselves of recording industry stock.
So good job guys! May you successfully avoid shareholder lawsuits!
meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
both van halen and heart have written the mccain campaign, more than once in the case of heart, that they do not wish their songs used to further the political campaign of a person they disagree with.
it's too bad that all these artists don't have some kind of professional organization to represent them. you know, it could collect dues from its members, and then stand up for them in cases like this, where their hard work and creativity is shamelessly co-opted as a marketing gimmick by those in direct and diametrical opposition to the artists themselves on any issue of importance.
like, an association of american industry recordists, or a recording association of american industry... something...
Actually, it's a success, and I'm not trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been a success, it just hasn't finished its course yet. First, ask yerself, What is the **AA's ideal win situation?
Consider that they're substantially in bed with the TV industry also, and while not always in concert with cable and satellite distributors, often in parallel.
The ideal situation is what WAS, with a few new techno gadgets. That is, all information and entertainment channels neatly tied up; no individual (read: Human) talents leaking around the filters, only going thru the **AA contract filtering process, etc.
This requires that home computing be made illegal, completely. It must be a crime to write software, or load non-**AA approved software, onto any computing device you own. Consider this situation:
A. Enormous technological capacity at
B.. nearly zero cost in
C... everyone's home that is
D.... available to the corporations, and
E..... completely inaccessible to non-corporate (read: Human) interests.
What corporate interests would benefit? Political parties? Law Enforcement, Dept of Homeland Insanity? M$$$? **AA??? Marketing corps of all stripes?
Every corp and govt body that is interested in getting you to buy their stuff or control your stuff will benefit if the **AA eventually wins. I can't think of one national or international corporation/govt that won't benefit by using the people's computing powers against them.
This is going to be a long fight, and the only ones that can really lose are we the people. If we win utterly, and computing freedom is assured and privacy rights restored, corporations will win in the long run, they just can't see it.
my direct experience with a large TV network (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a software engineer who shoots photography in a 'serious amateur' mode.
like many, I have a public sharing site (I use flickr but others are basically the same kind of 'publish and show' concept).
the cool thing about the public networking sites is the amount of eyeballs that view them.
a few weeks ago, I got email from a representative from a cable tv network (a large well-known one that has a 3 letter 'call sign', sort of like how HBO uses 3 letters to ID their network. it isn't HBO but its along those lines and just about as big). the rep said that they found my photo (or set of photos) and thought they might be useful in a tv 'spot' that they were producing and airing in the next few months. they wanted to get my permission to use it in some way on their show.
of course, I was flattered. I asked what their terms would be and what kind of payment they would have in mind. remember, this is a for-profit TV network (ie, not PBS) and they *should* have proper budget for things, even ancillary things like my still photo.
well, we went back and forth on email for a few rounds and I even consulted some folks in the biz that are in touch with common practices in this industry. it turns out that, more and more, media companies are trolling the free photo sites and trying to take advantage of 'amateurs' by offering NO PAYMENT but only trinkets (tee shirts, comp dvd of the show, and stuff like that) but no payment, no royalties and basically asking for unlimited rights to do whatever they want with the work of art, even on 'future media types' not yet developed. perpetual license - and I, the artist, get spud-nutz (so to speak).
is that fair?
I hear all this talk, over and over again, about artists should be paid. so I returned the sentiment back to papa media and papa slammed the door in my face.
I asked for a simple low-value (relatively) one-time payment and immediately the reply was 'sorry, but all the others we contacted offered their photos for free and we have no budget to pay guys like you'.
I just LOVE this double-standard. when someone downloads a song for free, there are THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS being asked for in damages. but its ok for a major studio network to ask for FREE WORK even though its original, creative and of value.
so, it seems, my photos won't be seen on that nationally airing show, but I also have what I wanted from this exchange. I sent a message, however small, that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. I don't expect my protest to count for a lot, but I did what I could do and denied them free use of my creative work. I'm sure they'll move on to the next guy on the list but I have at last made my statement and stood my ground. and I still have the fun compliment of knowing they WANTED to use my work on national TV (and on the eventual dvd that always gets made from TV specials).
do I have any more respect for the big media companies? in fact I have lost even more respect for them - and I didn't think that such a thing was mathematically possible.
big media says artists should be paid. but they clearly don't believe this - my direct recent experience is proof of that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You should, in my humble opinion, blog about that and get some more eyeballs on your text/message. IANAL but you can likely freely name the TLA network by name. If I were you I would also be attentive to see if they went to the hosting site to try to get permission from them (many TOS seem to allow them to have a right to distribute your work without your additional consent as a part of the contract) and/or just used your work without your permission.
Anyhow, I liked your message and I hope you have the time
Piracy is Competition, not Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an analogy:
A carpenter becomes well known for his excellent chairs. He is approached by a salesman who offers to duplicate these chairs in a factory and sell them all over the world. The carpenter agrees to this plan when told that he will receive $1 for each chair sold. And of course, he can continue making chairs by hand for people who want a more personal performance.
Years go by, the carpenter makes some money, but realizes that the salesman is making millions for doing virtually nothing.
Then one day, someone figures out how to make identical copies of his chair and posts plans for it on the Internet. Now anyone with a saw and some wood can make a perfect copy of the chair. Those who don't have the time can still buy it from the salesman or pay a bit more to get one from the carpenter.
The chair made by the carpenter is like a rock concert.
The chair from the salesman is a CD.
The chair you make yourself is a digital copy from the Internet.
There is no way this would be considered wrong, illegal or immoral if we were actually talking about some chair design like an Adirondack or even some fancier newer design like an aeron. Nor would providing plans for others to make copies be considered illegal since there is no loss to the carpenter. His inventory is not short, his supply stock is not depleted.
But the salesman would be pissed, because his revenue is dependent on need and achieved with virtually no effort on his part. Now, there is less need through no effort on the part of the consumer. This is direct competition so the natural response is to petition the government to make this illegal and protect his business.
We have a long history of protecting businesses through regulation. It's anti-competitive, anti-consumer, tends to create monopolies and is basically a bunch of corrupt politicians taking money from thieves who would like the barn doors left open.
The only way to hasten the demise of an organization like the RIAA and its member companies is to stop buying content that you can either copy yourself or acquire directly from the artist. Support your artists, go to their concerts and if they sell direct, buy their albums. But we need to stop buying anything distributed through the channel and starve these guys until the music distribution model becomes more like chair design and construction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Has the press gotten so pathetic...
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I talk to others, but here's what I'm getting:
Bastard child in the family - Obama was a bastard
DUI 20 years ago - Chappaquiddick
Tried to get earmarks for town - Duh, that's what mayor's do.
Investigation into trying to get her BIL fired - By all accounts he SHOULD have been fired and was being improperly protected.
Trying to paint her as a hypocrite is similar to criticizing her experience - the more the Dems do it, the more they open themselves up. They won't lose votes over it, but they WILL do won
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even that. Except for the die-hard Democrats, who really cares if the candidate's husband had a DUI 20 years ago? it has nothing to do with her qualifications and everything to do with how desperately her opponents are looking for mud to sling.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)