RIAA Not Sharing Settlement Money With Artists

Klatoo55 writes "Various artists are considering lawsuits in order to press for their share of the estimated hundreds of millions of dollars the RIAA has obtained from settlements with services such as Bolt, KaZaA, and Napster. According to TorrentFreak's report on the potential action, there may not even be much left to pay out after monstrous legal fees are taken care of. The comments from the labels all claim that the money is on its way, and is simply taking longer due to difficulties dividing it all up."

T'was Ever Thus

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

With these crooks.

Is anyone surprised by this?

[Alexx K]

The RIAA does not exist to serve the artists. It's mission now is to suck all the money it can out of a dying business model.

They have all the data...

[Helios1182]

They have all the data on how many times each song was infringed, so I'm sure this ought to be easy.

Re:They have all the data...

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Good point. They say they've got the information to spout an accurate number on how much file sharing costs them every year, so they're only a short perl script away from having accurate numbers of what to pay each artist, right?

Strategy

[dunezone]

I dont quite understand the strategy of the RIAA, is this even a profitable strategy. You first need to collect evidence, then you need to file the lawsuit, and finally the defendant has to pay, that is if he or she is found in guilt. So now you to pay for the collection of evidence, then the lawyers, and then you have to hope the defendant has money to pay you to recoup the loss.

So I guess they have internal lawyers but as the cases grow in numbers you need to hire out law firms which is not cheap. I don't know who they pay to collect the evidence, or to tell if someone is infringing but they have to monitor the P2P networks and I guess the torrents.

So by the end of the case lets say the defendant is given a infringement cost of $10,000 or something. They still have to pay it up.

What person in their right mind thought this was a good plan. Theres so many parties to deal with, so much time that needs to paid for. In the end all I see happening is a loss plus tarnishing the name of the RIAA. Hell, if the defendant wins then the RIAA might have to pay them. This seems like a strategy proposed from old-school business into a new-business world.

Re:Strategy

[darkhitman]

It's not about profit (all of which likely just goes straight to the lawyers). It's about instilling fear into the consumer base, in the irrational hopes of scaring them out of downloading music.

How much do the artists REALLY get

[Cryophallion]

A few things:
1. I remember reading somewhere that the money all went back into more lawsuits, so I don't think that is boding well for money going to anyone who thinks they actually "earned" it
2. Do the artists get the "real" damages (i.e., paid for the one or two songs mediasentry supposedly caught them downloading), or the higher damages? As I don't think the artist owns the copyright in this case, how much are they really entitled to?
3. For the settlement letters, is there again a set amount per song that they listed as being due the artist? Or is it again only the royalties they would get from selling one song on a cd or itunes for example? If so, please expect about $.05 per settlement - not what they want (or think they deserve, but as a recent article on slashdot pointed out, the RIAA wants to reduced royalties while they are at it).

If I was the artist, I wouldn't go buying a car with the expectation that the check was in the mail... not even a matchbox car.

Why would they?

[Monoman]

I believe it works this way. The record companies pay artists royalties and they pay the RIAA as well. I don't think the artists pay the RIAA. It seems to me that IF the RIAA is going to pay anyone it is going to be the record companies. If that happens will the record companies kick any money back to the artists? I doubt it.

Re:share? why?

[MightyMartian]

I find this all incredibly amusing. Here you have these pricks like Gene Simmons and Metallica out there fighting the good fight for the record companies, and now, suddenly, they all wake up and realize "Waitta minute! Those fuckers in the boardrooms are still crooks!"

Here's a bit of a friendly nod to all those artists who were retarded enough to believe the record industry was somehow looking out for them:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Re:Oh come on now

[QuantumG]

And that's why other countries don't have punitive damages. Somehow civil matters got all mixed up in the USA. I guess greed does that.

Re:Imagine all the problems...

[MicktheMech]

No, it's all done electronically now and we all know that the internet isn't like a dump truck...

It's a series of tubes!

We already knew this...

[erroneus]

...the trick is to get that point across to the "artists in support of the RIAA"

Re:Oh come on now

[Solandri]

I'm no fan of RIAA, but the RIAA lawsuits aren't about recouping money for the artists. That would be a ludicrous business model (one where you let people steal your product and then sue them to recover you loses on a routine basis). The RIAA lawsuits are about raising the risk/reward ratio to make people decide not to steal music.

If you're correct and the copyright infringement penalties are meant to be punitive instead of compensatory, then they are enormously disproportionate. Punitive damages are meant to simply discourage the defendant (and others) from engaging in that behavior, not consign them to a bankruptcy. Being able to file a lawsuit for several dozen times a person's net worth isn't punitive, it's overkill. Would our legal system be considered sane if the potential punitive damages for Microsoft's monopoly case had been $2 trillion?

The problem is the RIAA wants and is getting their cake and eating it too. They want your music purchase to be treated as a product with no liabilities of a license (like discounted upgrades), but they want to restrict what you do with your purchase like a license. They want copyright infringement and its punishments to be considered a crime, but they want the standard of guilt used in civil cases. They want fines and settlements to be thought of as compensatory ("$billions in lost sales justify what we do"), but bring up the idea of sharing those compensatory awards with artists and suddenly it's punitive. Pick one, or the other. Don't flip flop whenever it's convenient to do so.

Re:Musicians don't get money for record sales anyw

[djupedal]

Record companies benefit when you buy.
Musicians benefit when you listen.

So....what happens when you listen to what you buy?

Re:Oh come on now

[jgarra23]

Who modded parent insightful?

And that's why other countries don't have punitive damages. Somehow civil matters got all mixed up in the USA. I guess
greed does that.

That is not why. Most countries that do not have punitive damage allowances in their laws are usually run by tyrants anyways. The idea of of punitive damages is to punish an entity enough so they think twice before they do it again, it's a civil punishment for a civil case where a criminal punishment should be enacted but cannot be for whatever reason.

You know what happens when tort reform runs rampant and punitive damages are out the window? Companies like Exxon can get away with murder by polluting an entire coastline and having only to pay 2 weeks worth of profit as a fine. This is not greed, this is not tort reform, this is justice gone wrong. Thanks to the tort reform in America Exxon has a punishment that does virtually nothing to a company which committed a criminal act. The amount they have to pay is a drop in the bucket compared to how much the citizens of Alaska have paid with their well-being. So perhaps it is the lack of a real punitive damage which is greedy!

Now I see what you mean when for instance, people who KNEW cigarettes would kill them continue to smoke and now tobacco companies are having to pay out the a** because of some jerk who took a KNOWN risk and then whined about it later but this is a law that needs refining, not a blanket statement that all punitive damages are greedy.

Re:They have all the data...

[falconwolf]

Each download DOES NOT equal a missed sale and the falling numbers for each industry not only coincide with P2P popularity, they also coincide with a declination in quality work

Actually as someone else pointed out earlier this year the quality of music hasn't gone down, for instance I love the Classic Rock, Rock and Roll, and Southern Fried Rock from the '60s and '70s. But most of the music that came out then wasn't very good. For instance I love Gordon Lightfoot's "The Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald" [corfid.com] but there aren't many others of his songs that were that good. Or take Iron Butterfly, about the only song of theirs I love is the drum solo Inagodadavida [blinkbits.com]. The same can be applied to many other artists.

No, I think a big reason music sales declined was because of the economy. When the RI/MPAA started complaining about drops in sales the economy was dropping overall and not just for entertainment. Hell entertainment is one of the first things people reduce spending on when money gets tight.

Falcon

Re:T'was Ever Thus

[siddesu]

Now if you englighten me to the difference in the positions of the main players of the RIAA and RIAA itself ...

Re:T'was Ever Thus

[zippthorne]

You do realize that those juke boxes, even with the "extortive fees" put a lot of real, local artists out of business: instead of needing a band 3 or 4 nights a week, the bars could scale down to the 1 or 2 most popular nights.

Juke boxes are like, the Wal*Mart of the bar music industry.

Re:Oh come on now

[zotz]

"That is not why. Most countries that do not have punitive damage allowances in their laws are usually run by tyrants anyways. The idea of of punitive damages is to punish an entity enough so they think twice before they do it again, it's a civil punishment for a civil case where a criminal punishment should be enacted but cannot be for whatever reason."

Well, if that is the case, the punitive part of the award should not go to the plaintiff.

all the best,

drew

Re:T'was Ever Thus

[budgenator]

The RIAA represents the record companies and it function is to spend as much money as fast as it can and any left over goes back to their clients the record company. The record company represents the artists and it's function is to spend as much money as fast as it can and any left over goes to their clients the artists. Wash rinse repeat, lawyers that can't get hired into the record companies settle for probate law. Do you know what the difference between a vampire and a probate lawyer is? The vampire quits sucking your blood when your dead!

Re:Of course it's coming!

[ehrichweiss]

Mods, wake up!! The parent post is "interesting" but it's magnitudes more "funny".

Re:Strategy

[initialE]

Take a hint from the BSA. Once they ran out of legitimate infringements they came after business owners that were marginally not up to their license counts, or even worse, were using legitimate software, but didn't have the receipts to prove it. (Apparently the genuine certificates weren't worth a damn.) If catching piracy supports their bottom line, then it makes sense to them to extend the definition of piracy to the point where nearly everyone is guilty. And that's considered good business. Profitable business.

No, this is completely fair

[jollyreaper]

I'm shocked, shocked to find out that the RIAA is stiffing the artists on piracy settlements, especially after the labels stiffed them on their original contracts.

Re:Agree 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement is not "illegal".

sure it is, there are laws and everything. In fact, that's just a stupid statement.

Of course, it is generally held by the course the copyright infringement is about the distribution of material, and the receiving of material.
There's a good reason for this.

now you can say it's not immoral, but that is different.

In a legal war...

[zobier]

Only the lawyers win.

Re:What are you on about?

[tompaulco]

Why are artists held to such a level, that they should be willing to play for free so long as someone enjoys their music? Anyone familiar with history knows that the most famous artworks were commissioned by aristocracy and wealthy individuals. Why in the 21st century should we suddenly expect art to be free?

Re:Of course it's coming!

[arth1]

What's sad is that it's possibly more insightful than we think.

The check's in the mail

[Chris Mattern]

Hey, you're beautiful
Don't ever change
You know what I mean
My girl will call your girl
We'll talk, we'll do lunch
Or leave a message on my machine
So baby, won't you sign
On the dotted line
I'm gonna make your dreams come true
The check's in the mail
Would I lie to you

Re:Of course it's coming!

[z80kid]

Mods, wake up!! The parent post is "interesting" but it's magnitudes more "funny".

What's sad is that it's possibly more insightful than we think.

Can't decide.... interesting? or insightful? ..uh, funny? Ow... my head! Must decide... Ow!

Oh hell. Now I've posted and can't mod anyway.

Re:Agree 100%

[Jason Levine]

I'll admit that I've bought a few CDs over the past 5 years, but not many. (Mostly for my wife and kids and probably less than 10.) Then again, I was never a big music purchaser so they can't blame my personal "poor buying habits" on the emergence of P2P networks. Unfortunately, the RIAA doesn't look at declining CD sales and think "Gee, we have an high priced product with diminishing quality in an economic downturn and while the consumer has less money to spend on our goods, they have more choices (DVDs, games, etc) on what to spend those limited dollars on." Instead they think "@&$^! Internet Pirates! We must legislate that all Americans buy at least one CD per month or get shipped off to GitMo where they will be forced to listen to Brittney Spears tracks until their ears bleed!"

No, it's definitely illegal...

[Joce640k]

It may not be "immoral", but it's illegal wherever there's laws prohibiting it.

(That's the definition of "illegal")

The artists don't make any money from RIAA-mediated CD sales* so I have a hard time feeling bad over pirate CDs.

[*] Technically they do get royalties, but the artists have to pay for all production, promotion, videos, etc. and the RIAA gets to set the price of those, not the artist. In practice the marketing and video production companies are all in the RIAA "family" and artist's paycheck always seems to end up at almost exactly zero.

Coincidence? I think not....