Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

Variety Says Class Action May Stop RIAA Suits 133

Posted by Zonk from the that-would-be-nice dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Variety reports that Andersen v. Atlantic, the class action which has been brought against the RIAA in Oregon may 'ultimately force the organization to drop or dramatically change the way it uses its principal weapon in the fight against online piracy"'. The RIAA responded to Variety saying that 'We are confident that (Andersen's) claims have no merit....We look forward to presenting our arguments in the next few weeks to the court about why this case should be dismissed. In all our cases, we seek to follow the facts and be fair and reasonable in resolving pending claims.' p2pnet opines that Hollywood's interest in the suit bodes ill for the RIAA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Variety Says Class Action May Stop RIAA Suits More

Variety Says Class Action May Stop RIAA Suits

Comments Filter:

  • oblig. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31, 2007 @12:34PM (#20426161)
    The RIAA has a very unusual and skew view of the words "fair", "reasonable" and "facts". Could someone buy them dictionaries with those words highlighted please.

    • Re:oblig. (Score:5, Funny)

      by HarvardAce ( 771954 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:52PM (#20427049) Homepage

      The RIAA has a very unusual and skew view of the words "fair", "reasonable" and "facts". Could someone buy them dictionaries with those words highlighted please.
      Just make sure that the dictionary doesn't come from the one Fox News must be using...

    • Nah, but I'll photocopy the pages from the dictionary containing those words, and mail them to the RIAA.

      The attached note would read:

      How do ya like them apples?
      Citations:
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: fair
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: fact
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: reasonable
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: loser
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: moron
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: wad
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: turd
      • 2007 M-W, Entry: steam

  • Yeah! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Marrshu ( 994708 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @12:36PM (#20426175)
    Stick it to the man in the suit! That's the way to do it... Oh, you meant LAWSUITS , my bad.

    • Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @12:44PM (#20426271) Journal
      Persisting, the RIAA began to harass Andersen's 10-year-old daughter, demanding a deposition from her and even posing as a relative when calling her school to get access to her.

      Wow, wouldn't just this issue alone be enough to sue those companies? harrasing a minor or something like that? I am sure you guys have some kind of law that punishes that ("think of the children").

      Also, I found the following quote funny:
      Ray Beckerman, an attorney who has represented defendants in illegal downloading lawsuits filed by the RIAA.
      As I am not a native English speaker, I read that as "The illegal lawsuits, with the subject of downloading" or, illegal downloading-lawsuits and my first thought was, yeah, they surely are illegal indeed.

      • Persisting, the RIAA began to harass Andersen's 10-year-old daughter, demanding a deposition from her and even posing as a relative when calling her school to get access to her.

        Wow, wouldn't just this issue alone be enough to sue those companies? harrasing a minor or something like that? I am sure you guys have some kind of law that punishes that ("think of the children").
        Yeah, where's Dateline NBC with all this. To Catch an RIAA Predator

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by InvalidError ( 771317 )
      I read the first couple of pages of the Andersen vs RIAA filing, looks like her lawyer has done a pretty good and interesting job on this one.

      This passage might explain why: "In May 2004, for health reasons, Ms Andersen had been forced to leave her position as case manager for the Department of Justice" (p.12)

      If I were a RIAA lawyer, I would probably think thrice and most likely decide to forget about about filing a lawsuit based on flawed and illegally acquired evidence against someone who worked for the D
  • Those uppity little people....let's SLAPP them back!

  • All of these lawsuits... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Forget the RIAA. I'm going to make my own Artist Association, with strippers and blackjack...
    Actually, forget making an Association!
  • I don't think they're going to stop suing people altogether. I think that the class action suits will serve to severely stunt the growth of their ever-mounting kills but it won't stop them. The MAFIAA may have to resort to more, dare I say, legal means of investigation.
  • Fear and surprise, surprise and fear.
  • Maybe this will force them into changing their marketing model and allowing artists to concentrate on music rather than creating an album. Nah. They are too entrenched in their position to allow themselves to change.
  • Variety should have copyrighted their court papers and their evidence and licensed only the judge/jury to view them without allowing distribution. Then when the RIAA tries to get a copy, sue them for copyright infringement!

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @12:54PM (#20426381)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The problem is... where does it stop? Do I get sued for giving a friend of mine a copy of a CD that he was never going to buy, anyway?

      • The problem is... where does it stop? Do I get sued for giving a friend of mine a copy of a CD that he was never going to buy, anyway?

        Two conditions.

        1. All available money has been funneled into *IAA to cover 'lost sales' of shit we were never gonna buy, but were sued into paying for anyways.
        2. There are no places on Earth where *IAA whims do not hold force of law.

    • Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?
      Well, since people are refusing to pay the money and since -- according to your numbers -- they spend loads of cash on other crap, then it must be too much to ask.

      • Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?

        Well, since people are refusing to pay the money and since -- according to your numbers -- they spend loads of cash on other crap, then it must be too much to ask.

        That... or they don't like the CD. They download it to find out its crap that's not worth their $15. The RIAA just assumes that everyone must love the shit they shovel down our throats with payola and flood the airwaves with.

        • The RIAA just assumes that everyone must love the shit they shovel down our throats with payola and flood the airwaves with.
          That... or they assume that pirates must like their music enough to download it.

    • Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JamesRose ( 1062530 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:10PM (#20426549)
      The issue is not that guilty people get sued. The issue is that the way the RIAA gets evidence is immoral and probably illegal (invading people#s computers, entrapment etc.) then of course the fact that many people get sued for copyright breach that never happened. And finally, the fact that they aren't sueing someone who stole one mp3 for $1, they're suing for hundreds of times the value of the mp3. There are more reasons than that, but the fact is we side against the RIAA not because of what it does, but rather how and to some extend why, they do it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by coats ( 1068 )
        If what Ms Anderson says is correct, then the Oregon Attorney General _ought_ to get into this: various RIAA types need jail time and/or disbarment.

        fwiw. (

    • an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen.
      You need to factor how many people have to buy the cd. The $200B has to buy how many millions of copies of that 1 cd?

    • Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?

      How do you know if you like a CD, if you haven't listened to it? Many people buy CDs to support artists they like, after listening to unlicensed downloads of their songs.

      I also think this is a case of car manufacturers vs. the buggy whip industry. IMHO, it's environmentally irresponsible to haul CDs around the globe, when we have a better technological alternative. I'd pay for lossless downloads at guaranteed speeds, if the alternative is mp3s at questionable quality and availability.

    • Actually the GPL is used as a weapon against copyright it is actually what's known as copyleft. Fighting fire with fire.

      If there was no copyright then there would be no need for the GPL.

      The GPL violators are in fact the hypocrites here. They copyright their own work whilst using works which have been freely given to the public domain.

      • Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ajehals ( 947354 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @03:00PM (#20427771) Journal

        If there was no copyright then there would be no need for the GPL.
        If there was no copyright then the GPL could not exist and the aims behind the GPL (That a people should be free to use, improve and then re-distribute GPL software) would fail. They would fail because all the code that is currently GPL would be taken up by companies, modified, improved (or just re-branded) and redistributed, in closed source form.

        DRM would be even more prevalent and probably more effective, it would be seen as the only way to make money from any idea (software, artistic work etc..), Oh and that GPL material that had been closed sourced? that would be sat under layers of DRM too. Arguing for the total abolition of copyright is not a good and positive thing, not unless you could provide some other legislative or social mechanism to address the damage done.

        The problem with current copyright legislation is the length of copyright and the terms associated with it - see one of my previous posts [slashdot.org] for more,

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Laur ( 673497 )

          If there was no copyright then the GPL could not exist and the aims behind the GPL (That a people should be free to use, improve and then re-distribute GPL software) would fail. They would fail because all the code that is currently GPL would be taken up by companies, modified, improved (or just re-branded) and redistributed, in closed source form.

          Yes, but if there was no copyright, it would be entirely legal to reverse engineer, disassemble, & decompile any closed source software. I imagine we would

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ajehals ( 947354 )
            In many places you can already reverse engineer software and re-implement what you wish, (patents being the only issue, but many places that allow reverse engineering do not have software patents). The problem is that reverse engineering is hard, this would in effect lock out the little guy who just wants to modify something, or port something from one OS revision to another.

            As for DRM, no its not likely to become perfect, but once again you end up with the hassle of having to break it.

            Your last paragraph

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Laur ( 673497 )

              In many places you can already reverse engineer software and re-implement what you wish, (patents being the only issue, but many places that allow reverse engineering do not have software patents). The problem is that reverse engineering is hard, this would in effect lock out the little guy who just wants to modify something, or port something from one OS revision to another.

              "Clean room" reverse engineering is allowed, but I don't know of anywhere that allows you to disassemble or decompile a program, edi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )
          They would fail because all the code that is currently GPL would be taken up by companies, modified, improved (or just re-branded) and redistributed, in closed source form.

          And all the code that is closed source would be leaked, modified, and redistributed in 'free form', and be nearly impossible to sell because everyone wanted a copy would just make one. DRM and encryption would be toothless deterrents, because it would be hacked put up on a torrent, and there is nothing anyone could do about it.

          But, I agre

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ajehals ( 947354 )
            I replied to your sibling poster in a similar them so this is redundant but hey.

            Cracking DRM, and having to wade through reverse engineered code (when have you seen source code leaked for a major application (Windows source code rumours excepted as I haven't actually seen any of it)) is a hassle, abolishing copyright would be a disaster for the open source community, maybe not from a continuation perspective, but certainly in terms of future expansion.

            Your other points are essentially sound and are similar

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by vux984 ( 928602 )

              Cracking DRM, and having to wade through reverse engineered code (when have you seen source code leaked for a major application (Windows source code rumours excepted as I haven't actually seen any of it)) is a hassle, abolishing copyright would be a disaster for the open source community, maybe not from a continuation perspective, but certainly in terms of future expansion.

              By leaked, I meant the application leaked to torrent sites already hacked (not leaked). My editing was not so good there.

              Corporations wo

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ajehals ( 947354 )

                With regard to the term, its quite interesting that you think 5 or 6 years is unreasonable for a book or a Movie. 100 years ago I would have agreed with you, but in this wonderfully modern world communication is so rapid that the exploitation of any work of art seems to happen fairly quickly (assuming copyright starts at the point of publishing rather than at the end of production). Hit films, books and music will make their outlay back in a short time and leave the owner a tidy profit over a period of a

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by vux984 ( 928602 )
                  but in this wonderfully modern world communication is so rapid that the exploitation of any work of art seems to happen fairly quickly (assuming copyright starts at the point of publishing rather than at the end of production).

                  5 years is enough to get past the hey-its-new-hype but consider what it will do to derivative product:

                  Sure, maybe the nutjob writing Harry Potter books will get paid for the rights to the movie, but most of the time they'll just get the shaft as the studio will wait out the 5 years to

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Ajehals ( 947354 )
                    Nothing wrong with most of that as far as I am concerned. The creator has a period to exploit the work and then it is available for anyone to work with. A film about a book is a derivative work anyway unless you are copying everything word for word, and derivative works, extensions and improvements should be encouraged. I am not quite sure that I need to modify my point to include using a book as the basis for a porn film as that is just another way to exploit a work.

                    I am not saying that works would be l

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by vux984 ( 928602 )
                      A film about a book is a derivative work anyway unless you are copying everything word for word,

                      A film adaptation of a book is a derivative work, yes, and the author should benefit from its creation while the book is copyprotected. And that protection should last more than a couple years. (Which is all a 5 year term effectively does, as by year 4 the product is virtually unsellable anyway because everyone knows it will free in just a few more months.

                      and derivative works, extensions and improvements should

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Ajehals ( 947354 )
                      Your main point is the potential loss of revenue for the author, whilst I understand that wouldn't you agree (regardless of a copyright length of term) that the ability for society to make use of a work previously under copyright is an essential part of the copyright bargain? If you do agree do you not further agree that a work should leave copyright whilst it is still to some degree useful as a work from which further works can be derived, moreover shouldn't the work lose its copyright status whilst it is

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by vux984 ( 928602 )
                      wouldn't you agree that the ability for society to make use of a work previously under copyright is an essential part of the copyright bargain?

                      yes.

                      If you do agree do you not further agree that a work should leave copyright whilst it is still to some degree useful as a work from which further works can be derived, moreover shouldn't the work lose its copyright status whilst it is still relevant?

                      on the former yes (but I think even a 100 year term satisfies that for most works). on the latter 'relevancy' is un

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Ajehals ( 947354 )
                      OK my time estimates are probably wrong (it was your "rotting fruit" that swung it) and at present I dont feel able to redefine them.

                      However I have a problem with:

                      I suggested a solution to that. Short copyright, but extendable by the author, per work, for a price.

                      Primarily as it leads to people without capital being left out, or worse having to sell all or part of their rights on order to get funding to secure their rights for a longer period.

                      Not sure how to address that though, maybe a single extension should be possible based upon some sort of criteria being met.

                      Anyway, thanks.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by vux984 ( 928602 )
                      Primarily as it leads to people without capital being left out, or worse having to sell all or part of their rights on order to get funding to secure their rights for a longer period.

                      Well, the presumption was largely that people making money from their work wouldn't have to release it so quickly if they didn't want to. So the capital to protect the work is coming from selling/licensing the work itself.

                      I agree that leaves a gap where an author with an unprofitable work can't prevent it from becoming public d

          • The problem isn't that copyright exists.

            On the contrary, this is a problem. Copyright must be abolished totally. Sounds strict? Sounds crazy? Maybe, but all alternatives are unacceptable. With the internet exists a method for the great masses to violate copyrights. The problem is that this can only be prevented with police state methods made in china. Even today my civil rights get more and more restricted. I live in Germany and many so called measurements against terrorism make absolutely no sense a

    • rtfa.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Arathon ( 1002016 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:15PM (#20426631) Journal
      Apparently, you didn't RTFA. If you had, you'd have noticed that this class action lawsuit really doesn't have anything to do with illegal downloading; in fact, as far as anyone can tell, the lady starting the lawsuit apparently had the case against her dropped. Her lawsuit basically alleges that the way in which the RIAA goes after its 'victims' is not legal, in the form of not gathering anything but totally circumstantial evidence before choosing to sue.

      Whether or not you approve of file-sharing, I'd imagine it's in your best interest to uphold the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty. =P

      • I'd imagine it's in your best interest to uphold the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty.

        Unfortunately (or not, depending on which side of the lawsuit you're on), that's only true for criminal cases. The burden of proof in a civil case is only "a preponderance of evidence" i.e. enough evidence to convince a judge/jury you're probably at fault.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AusIV ( 950840 )

          The burden of proof in a civil case is only "a preponderance of evidence" i.e. enough evidence to convince a judge/jury you're probably at fault.

          This is something of a concern to me. I am at one of the universities targeted by the RIAA this year. I've been somewhat concerned that they would send settlement letters to random students. If I refused to settle, they'd get a chance to look at my computer. Now, I haven't partaken in file sharing since napster got shut down by the 9th circuit court, but I do hav

          • I guess you haven't been reading much. These cases are not based upon any knowledge of any downloading on the RIAA's part, but based upon the existence in cyberspace of a shared files folder in a Fastrack p2p file sharing account, such as Kazaa, iMesh, Gnutella, LimeWire, etc.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MacWiz ( 665750 )
        I tried to RTFA but all I get is a blank page.

        Did TFA also mention the fact that the case was dropped because the next step was a jury trial and the RIAA had no evidence? Did it also mention that "the lady" was a case manager for the DOJ and knows exactly what is involved in proving the kind of action she filed?

        The RIAA is going to get nailed to the wall by Tanya Andersen and I, for one, will laugh mockingly at the rotting corpse.
        • The link to the Variety article works fine for me.

          I am working to get you that last laugh.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MacWiz ( 665750 )
            I am working to get you that last laugh.

            I know you are, and many of us greatly appreciate it. But you've gotta admit, your job would be a lot tougher if anyone at the RIAA or MediaSentry had a technological clue or, heaven forbid, any actual evidence.
            • Mac, if you think representing people with no money against a cartel of multinational corporations with money coming out of its ears, using lawyers who have no scruples.... ask any of the other lawyers representing defendants in these cases and ask them how 'easy' it is. If you can get us a grant of a couple of million dollars it will be a lot 'easier'.
              • Sorry I left out 2 words from my previous post. After the word "scruples" I meant to have the words "is easy". The comment should have read

                Mac, if you think representing people with no money against a cartel of multinational corporations with money coming out of its ears, using lawyers who have no scruples, is easy .... ask any of the other lawyers representing defendants in these cases and ask them how 'easy' it is. If you can get us a grant of a couple of million dollars it will be a lot 'easier'.

    • Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:18PM (#20426681)

      A $15 CD is 3 hours of minimum wage work. Most of the people who do that work are high school and college students, an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen. Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money? It's not like we're hurting for options on how to get it cheaper than a typical overpriced local store.

      When it comes down to other IP rights, why should those be sacred? It doesn't bother me at all when the latest GPL violation is posted on Slashdot. In fact, I say that the rights of developers working under the GPL should be totally ignored as long as we're going to cheer on people who are getting sued for downloading music they didn't buy. Both are copyright violations, and neither is more sacred than the other.
      The issue isn't the actual right of authors to control distribution of their work. The problem is the shady practices and dodgy logic that the RIAA uses to press their suits. I fully support the right of a artist/author/creator to control the distribution of their work and profit directly or indirectly for their efforts. However we protest that IP = undeniably unique identifier, That use of any means to gather information is fair, that intimidation and harassment or misrepresentation to obtain information are legitimate tactics. They simply are not. The RIAA have bought the courts, they aught not be allowed to behave in such a manner.

      We also do not agree that simply making a copy of works we own physical media to are in fact copy right infringements. Even more organizations like the Sound Exchange or acts like the Canadian media levy where a agencies is granted rights to collect monies for artists but in turn do not turn it over to the artists is unethical. If my unsigned band allows Digital imports to distribute our works via streaming radio the SoundExchange has no rights to charge any fee for this.

      We protest these not the right to steal music, but the ethics and actions of the various agencies representing DISTRIBUTORS. As the members of the RIAA are not artists themselves but the distributing agent (Sony, EMI, Virgin etc..).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gurps_npc ( 621217 )
      Two reasons. One 'slimey' and one 'honorable'.

      Slimy reason: The software copyright thefts Slashdoters attack are done by larger corporations (i.e. "the bad guys"). The Music copyright thefts are done by individuals.

      Honorable reason: Creators of Software art tend to actually get reasonable contracts. They are designed to pay a fair percentage, based on the value of their work. As a result there is a clear bellcurve effect with a a huge number of people making a living wage, and a small number of ho

    • Ultimately I agree with you... I've been purchasing music legally for a number of years in CD, downloads and vinyl form for the harder to find things, and additionally, I subscribe to Rhapsody for the more mainstream music. There is no real reason to download music illegally. That said, the issue is more to do with the quality of music. Its still quite common to have cd's with one good track and the rest of them being complete garbage. If thats the case, you are asking people to essentially buy the one son
    • Wow, your comments show a huge lack of understanding of this issue. Just to clarify, the issue here is not copyright violations, it is about how the RIAA has been conducting itself for years now. This class action has nothing to do with cheering on copyright violation, it's about putting an end to the RIAA's illegal and borderline illegal abuse of the American courts. Copyright abuse is a two-way street and by all accounts the RIAA has acted as improperly as any copyright violator.

      • Wow, your comments show a huge lack of understanding of this issue. Just to clarify, the issue here is not copyright violations, it is about how the RIAA has been conducting itself for years now. This class action has nothing to do with cheering on copyright violation, it's about putting an end to the RIAA's illegal and borderline illegal abuse of the American courts. Copyright abuse is a two-way street and by all accounts the RIAA has acted as improperly as any copyright violator.
        Well you've got that right. From my experience the majority of people the RIAA targets are people who did not do any file sharing of any kind. The RIAA's "expert" has admitted [blogspot.com] that he doesn't have a clue as to what 'individual' may have been doing the file sharing, and that his methods and MediaSentry's methods haven't been subjected [blogspot.com] to any of the testing that is required for them to be usable as evidence in Court, yet in my presence, a couple of months ago, an RIAA lawyer stood up in court and said to the judge that MediaSentry's investigator "detected an individual downloading and uploading".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cez ( 539085 )

          The RIAA's "expert" has admitted [blogspot.com] that he doesn't have a clue as to what 'individual' may have been doing the file sharing, and that his methods and MediaSentry's methods haven't been subjected [blogspot.com] to any of the testing that is required for them to be usable as evidence in Court, yet in my presence, a couple of months ago, an RIAA lawyer stood up in court and said to the judge that MediaSentry's investigator "detected an individual downloading and uploading".


          I'm curious, would th

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by coats ( 1068 )
            If the courts would enforce it...

            The RIAA's investigators and attorneys ought to be doing jail time over this one.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) *

            The RIAA's "expert" has admitted [blogspot.com] that he doesn't have a clue as to what 'individual' may have been doing the file sharing, and that his methods and MediaSentry's methods haven't been subjected [blogspot.com] to any of the testing that is required for them to be usable as evidence in Court, yet in my presence, a couple of months ago, an RIAA lawyer stood up in court and said to the judge that MediaSentry's investigator "detected an individual downloading and uploading".

            I'm curious, would this not open that lawyer up to a contempt of court or perjury charge for lying to the judge?

            Perjury? No.

            Contempt? Yes.

            Rule 11 sanctions? Yes.

    • Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MostAwesomeDude ( 980382 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:26PM (#20426771) Homepage

      A $15 CD is 3 hours of minimum wage work. Most of the people who do that work are high school and college students, an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen. Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money? It's not like we're hurting for options on how to get it cheaper than a typical overpriced local store.
      See, the way markets work is that the market price is set by the equilibrium, the balancing point between supply and demand. At equilibrium, the price and supply being advertised by the providers is equal to the cost and demand desired by the buyers, so everybody goes home happy. The problems start when a provider, or worse, a consortium of all of the market's providers (a cartel) group together and decide to raise the equilibrium price. This is called price fixing. Price fixing is bad for buyers because it does not address demand. Usually, in response to raised prices, demand drops, and in a normal market this would cause a price drop from oversupply as the providers adjust their prices to fit reduced demand. (In other words, if prices go up, people stop buying, and prices fall again.) However, in a price-fixed market, since the price never falls, demand slakes off, and one of two things happen.
      1. If people decide to just stop buying the good, than the market completely collapses. No demand and no buyers means that all of the providers go out of business.
      2. However, if people decide that they need the good, then a second market will appear, providing lower prices and filling demand. The first market's providers get choked out from the undercuts, and die unless they stop fixing prices.
      So, what we have in this case is a second market. It is a black market, a market that is not legally sanctioned. The cost of goods on this market is effectively zero, making it a free good. The RIAA can't possibly undercut or fairly compete with a free good like pirated music, so instead they resort to these lawsuits to try and scare people away from the black market. Does it work? Not really.

      So, what should the RIAA do? They should stop fixing prices and let the market sort itself out. There are two types of participants in the black market: People who want the good, but don't want to pay for it; and people who would pay for the good if it were a bit less expensive. The former will never leave the black market, but the RIAA could court the latter if they would only stop fixing their goddamn prices.

      That's the economics of it, anyway.

      • So, what should the RIAA do? They should stop fixing prices and let the market sort itself out.

        Problem: The RIAA has never allowed itself to work outside of a price fixed market. Even before they grouped together, the various companies didn't allow a non-price fixed market.

        At points they undercut their markets like the Mafia - break legs, etc. - and then moved more towards monetary. They've always corned out people they didn't want, and promoted those they did. Didn't like their game? Ok - but you won't

        • I don't think you can "break up" the RIAA ... they're just the front organization (industry trade group, or some such) for a cartel (and a largely foreign-owned one at that), and the whole point of a cartel is to avoid attracting antitrust lightning. Even if the RIAA disappeared tomorrow, the price-fixing bastards that run the major studios would still be playing golf.

      • The black market actually offers a superior product right now, ignoring price.

        • Pirated products have their DRM stripped out. DRM is often an annoyance to legitimate users, and sometimes actually harmful -- see the Sony "rootkits".
        • Pirated products are available for immediate download, through standardized means. Some legitimate products are, but most are only available through systems like iTunes and Steam, even when they don't come with DRM.
        • Pirated products can be cherry-picked, for no additional penalty

    • A $15 CD is 3 hours of minimum wage work. Most of the people who do that work are high school and college students, an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen. Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money? It's not like we're hurting for options on how to get it cheaper than a typical overpriced local store.

      The Bush admin is considering a $15 tax on orgasms. Why is it too much to ask if

    • The reason why I support the abolishment of copyright, support and actively participate in filesharing, but I am against gpl violations is because I couldn't give a fuck about copyrights, all I care about is having an open information age, with the most freedoms guaranteed for creativity and for doing what drives our society forward: incremental progress.

      Therefor, violating copyright when it restricts freedom == GOOD.
      violating copyright when it is a tool to forbid restriction of freedoms == BAD.

    • The Pro-File Sharing Argument (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheCouchPotatoFamine ( 628797 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:32PM (#20426855)
      you'll understand this issue when you realize that music is not an "Entertainment Option" it's a "Cultural/Spiritual Nescessity" and that most folks around here that want to stick it to the man aren't actually sooo desperate to get their hands on the latest crap; they are merely (merely?! maybe very!!) excited that, unexpectedly, joyously, there is now a way that future generations of americans (think of the children!) have a way to enjoy their cultural norms without fat business fucks acting like they are the priesthood of a new information age chapel.

      In other words, most people are far more excited to see the monopoly/monoculture fall then we ever were with what is actually being shared/downloaded. We came *this* close to being sucker punched for *generations* by DRM. And it still might happen if you don't do your part.
       
    • Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?

      Is it too much to ask that if you pay $50+ for a concert ticket that you get a free CD (free music)?

      It is my thoughts that music is a service, not a product, and that artists should be payed to perform these services, not to create false products.
    • Huh ?

      riaa sells extravagantly priced products, with 50 cents cost per piece but $15 price per piece.

      then giving out say, $5 every 2-3 days to a robber wouldnt hurt any people with $200 disposable income either. this way the money would get in circulation, physical assault during robbery cases would go down, and it would be a safer place. small price to pay for less violent crime dont you think ? it can even be made official and 'robbing' might be taken out of the scene altogether. just 'donate' $5 eve
    • >Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?

      Because humans dont think that casual stealing is very wrong. Thats why we put very weak locks on all our stuff. The locks in my car, home, etc will absolutely not stop a determined person, but it stops all the 'social stealing.' Thats human nature. Everything else is rationalizations for theft.

    • Re:I just don't understand the pro-file sharing ar (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @02:32PM (#20427519)
      Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?

      It's simple. I'm out of money. Instead of $15 for a 40 minute CD, I bought 4 120 minute DVDs for $20 at Blockbuster.

      It is a matter of value. I don't have tons of money to buy both the value products and the expensive low value products. DRM on many CDs has lowered their value even further. If you can't put it on your MP3 player, it's useless. If you find this out ofter the sale, opened items are not returnable. I learned early on to not buy a pig in a poke.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke [wikipedia.org]

      Many Jewel cases on retail shelves don't contain a real Phillips standard CD and are not clearly labeled.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design [wikipedia.org]

      For a prime example of overpricing the easy to duplicate back catalog music is still at high prices as though they are still paying for production costs which were paid for long ago.

      http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-White-Album/dp/B0000 02UAX [amazon.com]

      The outrageous price is simply from created shortage, not by any costs of production.

      Instead of buying this overpriced item, I can buy 4 movies that took orders of magnitude more to produce.

      Care to do a cost of production comparison for the Beatles White Album and the movies Monsters Inc, Cars, Toy Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Finding Nemo, and other large cast or high tech creations.

      When comparing value, the White Album costs more and has a much less talent and production complexity. At the current value/price points, I'm simply buying movies instead of albums. They don't have the value.
    • I don't understand it either, but it's not relevant to the RIAA or this article. (Did you RTFA?) The RIAA is suing people who aren't sharing. Copyright infringement is not the topic at hand. Thuggery and abuse of the court system, abuse that is costing innocent people shitloads of money, is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by db32 ( 862117 )
      You would honestly equate a company stealing a programmers work to make a profit and grandma letting her grandkids use her computer and then getting the shit sued out of her when they download music?

      1. Company KNOWS it is illegal and is intentionally violating the law. Frequently does any number of actions to hide the fact they are stealing code, which further acknowledges that they are breaking the law. When legal issues do come out of this it usually boils down to "you hafta give the code away!"
      2.
    • The case at hand, Andersen v. Atlantic, is about an innocent person who the RIAA attempted to extort through an illegal investigation, negligent legal practices, etc. There's no claim that sharing of copyright files is OK. It's about the illegal practices of the RIAA in how they pursue these lawsuits.
    • Well, for one thing, the $15 CD cost $.50 to physically produce and $2 are "reasonable" profits.

      The purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to produce work which will fall into public domain. Not to "make artists (and everyone associated with them) richer than the queen of england for a few years work.

      Let me put it this way..

      The minimum wage person has about $50 "free" money. Is it fairer to have a system where that money goes to make one or two artists (and their distributers) rich or to make 100 a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )
      These days a $15 CD is also 3 hours work for the artist, they just sing some songs and then the rest is reworked digitally, but for pete's sakes, let's say the CD costs 3 weeks of full-time (40h/week) work to create. That is 120 hours of work, in my eyes, I can do a lot of things in 3 weeks. Say you need the artists (avg band of 3 persons), 2 sound technicians (which is a lot), 1 editor and 2 aux. people that do something: that is 8 people x 120 x $55 (my current rate as a consultant which is rather high, d
  • With the RIAA in the back pocket of judges (campaign contributions, anyone?), Anderson v. Atlantic is unlikely to make any changes in the way things are done. Sadly, the soapbox and ballot box are no longer effective, and it just might take nothing short of an all-out revolution to change the sad state of affairs in the world. Either that or the Apocalypse, one of the two...
    • There is something the jury/public can do, but they have to know about it in the first place.

      Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bleh-of-the-huns ( 17740 )
      Judges don't get campaign contributions unless they decide to change jobs and run for public office, then in that case they are no longer judges, they have to step down. Judges are appointed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by rlp ( 11898 )
        Judges are appointed

        True for federal judges. For states, it varies by state.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Obyron ( 615547 )
        In Kentucky both Circuit and District Judges are appointed, as well as the newly created Family Court Judges. State Court of Appeals judges are likewise elected. Only our State Supreme Court judges are appointed (by the governor). Only federal judges are always appointed, regardless of court.

  • Two words that don't go together. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Geekbot ( 641878 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:03PM (#20426485)
    It's not everyday you see CLASS and RIAA in the same sentence.

  • Why settle? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Otis2222222 ( 581406 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:13PM (#20426597) Homepage
    From TFA:

    "If class action is certified, it's more likely that the record companies would settle," said Ronnie London, an attorney versed in class-action law with the firm of Davis Wright Tremaine, which specializes in communications law.
    Just once I'd like to see a plaintiff in one of these cases refuse to settle (witness: Sony rootkit fiasco). I'd like to see some actual, real sanctions be placed, because a settlement is likely to be a bunch of crap like a couple of free downloads or something equally worthless.
  • Towards the end of the article I read the following:Since September 2003, the RIAA has filed more than 21,000 illegal downloading suits.

    Think about it -- because many of these suits have a high number of defendants based on digitally obtained lists that may or may not be accurate based on the tool used to auto-generate the list. I can just about guarantee that another program took their lists and auto-generated many of the filings. [because I don't see the RIAA hiring masses of para-legal qualified folks to type up their legal filings....]. So at the minimum there is a

    • software list "maker" generating a list connected to
    • a software file-creator for that fills up the postal or other mail services for
    • the purposes of ostensibly extorting legal settlements,
    • and yet another set of programs filling up the legal system with cases based on program talking to program talking to program.
    Anybody else have a problem with corporate law being conducted like that? To my way of thinking every filing should have to be done without the intervention of a software list generator, wouldn't you think? That way a corporation must risk the cost of the data entry and hand operations to generate their filings, just like the rest of us would. Seems fair enough, doesn't it?
    • Dude! We should patent those things! Your bullet list sounds vaguely like a list of patent claims. Yes! Then we demand the RIAA pay us royalties. ;-)

  • Bald faced lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Orange Crush ( 934731 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:17PM (#20426665)

    "In all our cases, we seek to follow the facts and be fair and reasonable in resolving pending claims."

    No you do not! You demand outrageously overinflated damages and target people with all the accuracy of a drunk stumbling out of a bar. Most importantly, you are extorting money from people who have never used p2p file sharing and violated NONE of your copyrights. You then proceed to rely on scare tactics realizing most of these lawsuits will be settled out of court because the prospect of going toe to toe with a major corporation in the court room is downright terrifying and can financially ruin an individual of far lesser means than you.

    You have every right to protect your member organizations' copyrights via the court system. You *do not* have the right to pick people at random, bring financial ruin down on them, and harras them and their families.

    I don't have a huge amount of faith in the court systems these days, but you really need to lose. And badly. I'm not talking about $5.00 coupon-for-a-CD settlements. I'd really like to see a judgement so harsh that some of your member organizations are driven to bankruptcy. After all, it's what you've been using the courts to do to people these past few years. Turnabout's fair play.

  • Had to be said. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Majikk ( 60247 ) on Friday August 31, 2007 @01:17PM (#20426669)
    RIAA: "Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable... to... speak?"

    (Apologies in advance)

  • Most effective way to stop RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As stated before: consumers could stop RIAA law suits fairly quickly and forever by declaring by the millions that they have downloaded music and requesting legal action against themselves.

    If the numbers were big enough, literally millions, preferably concentrated in a local area (let's say New York City or New York State), where the court system would suddenly face prosecuting millions of people, sending them to jail (since all consumers would refuse to pay fine, they would insist on going to jail) - sudde
    • Or the RIAA could just ignore them and keep up the status quo. Their suits are civil, not criminal; and unlike trademark law, they are not required to pursue every violator.
      Equating filesharing with enslavement of an entire nation is about as related as setting your glass on the table is to landing a rover on Mars.
    • I think the most this would do is empty out a lot of basements.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close