Cuban Says RIAA Damages Should be $5 Per Month 693
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Upload, not download (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
Are you deaf? You can't get jail time or thousands in fines for downloading.
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. They're currently focusing their lawsuits on uploaders because that's the only civil case that they could possibly win.
They might SAY downloading is illegal, but they'd be hard pressed to win.
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so. When you download it, you're making a copy, and thus in violation of US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 106(1). A download creates a copy. It's not a TRANSFER of the original file. You aren't GETTING the original file and then nobody else can have it. You're copying it, just like you do when you upload. Even if you DELETE the original file after you upload, you still copied it. It's like burning a copy a CD
Re:Upload, not download (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I'm spot-on and you actually agree with me, which means you missed my point. :)
What you stated here is exactly correct, and is exactly why they target uploaders over do
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Insightful)
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if they ask for statutory damages - $750 minimum up to 150K for willful infringement per work. Think the RIAA will ask for actual damages instead of this? Not likely.
It's good to be the content owner.
Serving, not uploading (Score:3, Interesting)
To change infringement to theft, it is like saying if your CD collection is stolen and you didn't keep it behind a locked door, you're liable for the theft.
And there is no uploading in P2P. It's all downloading and serving. They are going after the people who are serving.
Serving, not uploading (Score:4, Insightful)
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:A copy of what? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, asking for a file does not necessarily equate to asking for a copy.
Directing a machine to copy the file does.
Unless I have the original, I can't make a copy.
Why not? If I take a photo of a painting, I've made a copy, but I don't need to "have" the painting to make the copy.
Your logic is equivalent to claiming that browsing the web is a constant copying of copyrighted content.
Well, it is.
I said nothing about public broadcasting.
Broadcasting is by definition public.
The FCC allows FM tra
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Upload, not download (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
You're right, though, the difference is in the severity.
Re:Upload, not download (Score:4, Informative)
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:
*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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Your mention of using news releases is incorrect; copyright law specifically mentions news reporting and comment as fair use and non-infringing. (source [copyright.gov])
One of the four factors used in determining fair use is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This is particularly imp
Re:Upload, not download (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Informative)
This doesn't happen. If I want to use the distribution channels controlled by the RIAA then I have to sign a contract with them and agree to the terms of it.
But if I am a music producer and wish to distribute my music however I want, I can do that. It's mine. I created it. I am the copyright holder in this case and I have the exclusive rights to
Re:Upload, not download (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"...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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, its a "cartel".
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Informative)
Not arguing anything, but I thought it might be good to point out here that the artist pays for all the recording and promotional costs. Artists usually receive no payment after a recording is made from the recordings' sale until, in the labels' opinion, it's costs have been repaid. There's a very good piece on how things work between labels and artis
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Informative)
That's because they are two different violations. Stealing a CD is misdemeanor theft. Uploading a CD to thousands of people is felony copyright infringement.
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, it's mos
Re:Upload, not download (Score:5, Funny)
"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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true.
Just read the copyright notice inside any music CD, the part about "public performance".
Re:Upload, not download (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Prohibition, current (of drugs).
3. Copyright violations in P2P terms.
All of these are bans on activities that are widely practiced.
Tens of millions of Americans download music from P2P.
Tens of millions of Americans drink (and drank during the prohibition years).
Tens of millions of Americans use drugs.
Strange, that non-violent activities that such a large portion of the population participate in should be illegal.
We are talking about a ban on substances you can (by ch
Re:Upload, not download (Score:5, Informative)
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:Upload, not download (Score:3, Insightful)
In your dreams.
Without a license to distribute you have no defense and your case will be decided by a judge as a matter of law.
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finding First Uploader, Counting Uploads (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Upload, not download (Score:3, Insightful)
this guy is on drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
I think Mark Cuban knows his way around digital media law[s] pretty well.
Re:this guy is on drugs (Score:5, Funny)
This is slashdot after all. Please be specific about the technologies you refer to.
Re:this guy is on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:this guy is on drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of the product is key to the RIAA's requests for thousands of dollars in damages. The RIAA claims a value of CD cover price per song when in fact the Yahoo deal puts that value closer to $5 per month. Wal-Mart isn't likely to win $75,000 off me if I shoplift a T-shirt. Why should the RIAA be able to ask
Re:this guy is on drugs (Score:3, Informative)
First sale (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't compute. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Interesting)
Punitive damages can be significantly more than actual losses. That's deliberate.
Re:That doesn't compute. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA doesn't compute either (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh...now I get it. (Score:2)
Re:Oh...now I get it. (Score:3, Funny)
Moreover my first thought in a slysdexic sort of way was that the RIAA was going after Cubans, I thought, Oooohhh that'll be fun , let the REAL copyright wars begin, a subpeona is no match for a well oiled AK-74
Cubans (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cubans (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
I was having the exact same image, except he falls down on stage afterwards...
RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Well, sort of. (Score:4, Insightful)
Booyah! (Score:2)
Though I think, legally, that violations before this would still be valued the same as they were (although iTunes prices could be the check for that at a buck a song or thousands of dollars of damages instead of hundreds of thousands...) (Though I could be wrong about that.)
total cost of settlement (Score:2)
This seems comparable to their current settlement amount.
Two things (Score:3, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Funny)
no incentive (Score:2)
First off somebody has to share for people to DL.. (Score:2)
Re:First off somebody has to share for people to D (Score:5, Interesting)
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:First off somebody has to share for people to D (Score:3, Interesting)
Bad Math (Score:2, Insightful)
The world is geting smaller... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The world is geting smaller... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The world is geting smaller... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I am not violating copyright by electronically purchasing a song from an overseas company (and, at least for the moment, I am not [theregister.co.uk]), how can I be violating copyright by transferring my legal purchase to my personal computer? Simply because it is digital?
Re:The world is geting smaller... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The world is geting smaller... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the company would have relented up front, it would have been considered a compromise by both parties.
If the RIAA would have got their act together early on; offering reasonable prices and services in the digital age....then maybe they could have kept the geanie in the bottle.
Since they did not -- anything no
$5 per month *per user* (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the RIAA could also look to Apple and say they're worth $1 per song per user. In which case Mr Shmoe would owe $1 * 1000 * number of songs downloaded.
This assumes that the uploader tracks the number of users and downloads and can verify the information to the satisfaction of the courts. This is why the RIAA and MPAA sue for generally large piles of cash. It's a very rare pirate that tracks their user base as well as Apple and Yahoo and every other legitimate music downloading business. The pirate is then at the mercy of the courts to decide how much they owe if they don't just settle with the RIAA.
Triple damages! (Score:2)
penalties must exceed cost of goods (Score:3, Insightful)
disingenuous if I understand it correctly (Score:4, Interesting)
would you like DRM with that combo meal? (Score:2)
I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
This is chilling precedent. What's to stop the RIAA from one day hacking into my machines and finding some MP3s (actually, they will find a LOT) and deciding that I am distributing them or that I do not legally own all of them? Can I afford to pay some schmuck lawyer to help me defend myself against this tirade? I can't, as I am unemployed currently. Could I afford a $10,000 "fine"? Probably not. People put other people's lives at risk with drunk driving, but when they are caught, they face only a $3,000 fine here in good ole Pennsyltucky. Aparantly putting the lives of people in danger is only worth $3000 to the state, while saying that stealing some music from a corporation that owes a multitude of its artists money and does its best not to pay is ludicrous is worth $10,000 is totally ludicrous.
The government doesn't need to get involved in this sham either. Hasn't anyone read the news? Record sales have been up. I guess the piss poor economy has had a lot more to do with sales driving down than some college kids who wouldn't have bought the freaking album new anyways.
For the record, 90% of the albums I've ever bought were from the used bin. It would be safe to say that I never supported the artists in the first place. KRS-One has this great line about how "if you downloaded the album, come to the show." I'm sure he makes a lot more from ticket sales at shows than he does from his albums. Maybe more people need to get out and see shows and maybe more shows need to start costing less than $50 a seat!
Is Dave Matthews really worth $100 to go see with your girlfriend? (assuming one has one here)
Neat... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one knows if the RIAA really has a case (Score:4, Insightful)
Until then it's all threats and scares.
Rental vs. Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
$5 a month for how long???? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone get caught with millions of songs, delete them, and just pay a 1 month ($5) Fine? or does a 15 year old get caught with 1 song have to pay $5 for the rest of his life ($4,200 assuming a 85 year life span)?
No Lawsuits Yet (Score:5, Informative)
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 think subscription services will fail... (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'm making a prediction that those services will fail. They all use the same DRM backed by Microsoft. (AKA, Play for Sure) One day someone will find a way to bypass the DRM and free all those songs. Suddenly, those hundreds of thousand of songs you've downloaded will be yours permanently.
Of course, they'll "fix" the problem but it'll happen again and again. Eventually the music industry will tire of being screwed and they'll make you buy the music outright. At least I hope so.
I don't think he looking at the bigger (Score:4, Insightful)
Controlled Music Substance (Score:3, Funny)
This is just one row over from "controlled literary substance" and one column up from "thought crime." Though, that last CMS I tried left my ears all numb and tingly. That was some good shit! (Another CMS wasn't much good for listening, but it killed all the mice in my house.)
Copyright Damages Are More Complex (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
A new model of entertainment commerce is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Once audio, video or print is turned into little ones and zeroes, it becomes impossible to control. You can wrap those ones and zeroes with some DRM pixie dust, but there's always some smarty-pants who can un-DRM them again. There are those still in denial about this, like the RIAA and MPAA executives, but history has proven this out in the last decade or so. Increasingly draconian laws have a short-term effect, but only postpone the inevitable shift to a different model.
Personally, when I get music or video, there are people I want to see paid for my privilege of enjoying the work. The writers, composers, musical artists and actors are at the top of the list, and also the professionals who capture and refine the work. Without them, there wouldn't be content to enjoy, so I want them to be paid. They need to be able to make a living.
Currently, though, a HUGE percentage of the money lines the pockets of people who have little part in the creative process. I don't care to pay them. They are not doing me any good. In fact, they often do me harm, screening thoughtful or poignant content out of the mix because it will somehow make them less money.
So, two problems - (1) we can't effectively control content in exchange for license fees in the digital world, and (2) we want to pay the right people and jettison the baggage. I propose that to solve these problems, a new economics of entertainment content must emerge.
Better, more informed and creative brains than my own need to noodle on this, and we need to quit wasting time arguing about the current, doomed paradigm of entertainment commerce. Of course, thoughts like these will threaten the barons of the entertainment industry - they are slow to move, and have no vested interest in seeing things change. But the status quo can't last forever, and is already on it's last legs.
blah blah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:cuban eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cool ...... (Score:2)
Re:A car (Score:3, Interesting)