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."

share? why?

[themushroom]

At what point did the RIAA claim that they were going through all these lawsuits on behalf of the artists? Uh... okay... those were the words in the broadside. Hmm.

Let's try again. At what point did they claim they were doing this to pay the arts for "lost profits"? There, that's it.

Re:Is anyone surprised by this?

[Wandering Wombat]

For additional information, please see:

Software companies
Hardware companies
Automobile companies
Colleges & Universities
Banking
Housing
What's outside your window...

...and the lawyers are friends/relatives

[Joce640k]

The hefty legal fees are staying in the family so it's all good.

Well....not so good if you're an artist, but any artist who still hasn't figured out what the RIAA is all about probably deserves it.

The only CDs I've paid for in the last couple of years were from places like CDBaby who state exactly how much the artist will receive for each CD sold. Worse, I've bought albums I didn't really like from CDBaby because that artist has made other albums which I did like. The reason was I wanted the artist to have some money but the RIAA had control of the album I liked.

Pissing off your paying customers? Not a good business model.

The main reason I share music these days is just to annoy the RIAA.

Re:T'was Ever Thus

[siddesu]

Well, *. I. Ass. of wherever are obviously crooks. That said, however, I don't feel particularly broken that their members are getting screwed by their own representative. Most of the members of the various labels under the hat of IFPI & Co. are there for one reason -- to pool lobbying resources so that they can bribe politicians more effectively into extending the (already extravagant) copyright laws.

This is as an attempt to screw me, the consumer, twice -- first, by raising the prices (which I accept while the copyright lasts, as long as the time limits are reasonable, and they stopped being so long time ago), and second by removing competition, usually by directly abusing legal system.

So, I am amused rather than heart-broken. Suck it, people, and before you call on lawyers to extortion for you, don't be surprised if you get extorted in turn.

RIAA and PR

[LithiumX]

I wonder how hard it would be to support a decentralized publicity campaign to directly tie these lawsuits, via the RIAA, to the agencies and artists the RIAA supports?

At present, it's largely a free lunch for the record companies - who have a vicious attack dog that uses tactics that shouldn't be legal. The bad PR doesn't do a very good job of reflecting back on them.

If the masses begin to associate these lawsuits with the music they're buying, that's when the pressure would mount.

Musicians don't get money for record sales anyway

[serutan]

Musicians rarely get paid royalties. On paper they do, but only after deducting all the costs of production, manufacturing, distribution, accounting, you name it. Only a few highly visible musicians like Madonna ever see any actual money from record sales. That's why the recording industry's "protecting the artists" mantra is just smoke. Musicians make a living by performing. Records give them exposure, which translates to better gigs with higher ticket prices.

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

Re:Oh come on now

[RedWizzard]

The RIAA is collecting damages on the basis that the artists have suffered financial harm due to the defendants actions. The rewards are intended by the courts to compensate the artists for the damage done. The RIAA have a moral (and probably legal) obligation to distribute the money they collect to the artists.

Re:Strategy

[grilled-cheese]

And by scaring people out of downloading music, they instead expect people to go back to buying cd's. But let's not forget that all cd's will now have extreme drm (I'm thinking sony). But eventually they will learn that the entire model of selling music is not making enough money. Therefore the model will shift to leasing music. That way they can keep charging you by the play, or by a time period. However at that point, physically distributing the music is a liability, so you will have to use your overly drm'd player to contact their secured music streaming service. Now they have who you listen to, your personal information, total control over how/when/what you have available and for how much.

Sounds like a good business to me.

Agree 100%

[Finallyjoined!!!]

I have a collection of, probably, 1200 CD's. 95% bought from music shops, some from boot-sales, flea-markets etc. NONE, & I repeat none are newer that 2004. You see I stopped buying!. {see the full stop?} after the record companies' agents started calling their customers "criminals".

I still have a considerably large vinyl collection, + a shed-load of commercial (not copied) tapes (mostly dupes of the vinyl - for playing in the car) even though I now don't have a functioning record player.

I looked this evening & for e.g. I have Bat out of Hell on vinyl, tape & CD - bloody three times!!

But if I fire up a p2p client - I'm a criminal.
WTF?

Copyright infringement is not "illegal".

Re:What are you on about?

[melikamp]

Talking about it all the time just helps you with your cognitive dissonance and makes it okay that you steal music.

When will this foolish drivel have run its course?

You can bring the day closer by defining what you mean by "stealing music". No, please do not assume that we are smart. No one is smart enough to figure out a phrase that is intentionally vague and insulting at the same time.

Do we steal music when we make a copy? When we make the first copy? An unauthorized copy? An illegal copy?

Do we "steal" music when we perform it without proper authorization?

Do we "steal" it every time we listen to an illegally made recording? Every time we listen to a recording without compensating someone? And if so, who are we supposed to be compensating?

Are we "stealing" it when we make a copy for a friend who would never find about the artist, if not for us?

Are we "stealing" when we remove DRM? When we digitize? When we shift formats?

Are we "stealing music" when we replace our stolen CD collection by getting it off the Pirate Bay (doesn't cost fat cats a dime)? When we legally download it from a different country? When we obtain a copy of something that is no longer published? When the artist is dead? How about when the artist says that it is OK, even though he does not own the rights? Is it still "stealing"?

You see, we just don't seem to have a good grasp of the meaning of the term you insist on using.

If you want to say "stealing music" on Slashdot, out of all places, even though it makes no legal (or any other kind of) sense, why won't you bloody define it for us? Or may be just say "infringe the copyright" instead, if that is all you mean to say?

Re:They have all the data...

[zerocool^]

Heh.

Some artist who's not a jackass should bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of the artists, claiming that they're owed $750 per successful litigation of a confirmed act of copyright infringement. Seeing as how the RIAA is determined to ram that valuation through the courts.

~Wx

Re:T'was Ever Thus

[rockout]

To be fair, a majority of people in bars would rather hear already-established tunes from a jukebox than from a live band, especially if having a live band means a $10 or $20 cover.... I'm not saying it's right; it's just how it goes.

Re:What are you on about?

[Maestro485]

Most of you care nothing about how much the RIAA pays artists.

You know what, you're right. Why should I pay you when I could pay the RIAA instead?

Re:Agree 100%

[arth1]

I believe that the reason why CD sales have plummeted is because there's no new good music to listen to. And, the reason why there's no new good music is because the economy has been nervous, to say the least, since the turn of the century. In a nervous economy, the corporations don't like to gamble on high returns, but will instead settle for a smaller but more guaranteed return. So they re-issue old music, and back up artists that follow the formula, but won't dare to gamble on artists who have something completely new. It's so much easier to churn out yet another rap artist, because it will sell enough to be profitable even if it won't be a big hit like those you had in the 80's or 90's.

I used to buy at least one album a week. Now I'm down to one a month on average, and every single one of them are either old recordings or from independent labels. Not because I boycott the record companies, but because there's no new big label music that I want. Their cowardice with not producing anything that doesn't follow the formula has gone on for so long that it's now backfiring.