5 Years of RIAA Filesharing Lawsuits 148
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "David Kravets of Wired.com, who provided in-person gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Capitol v. Thomas trial last year, takes stock of the RIAA's 5-year-old litigation campaign, concluding it is 'at a crossroads', and noting that 'billions of copies of copyrighted songs are now changing hands each year on file sharing services. All the while, some of the most fundamental legal questions surrounding the legality of file sharing have gone unanswered. Even the future of the RIAA's only jury trial victory — against Minnesota mother Jammie Thomas — is in doubt. Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.'"
Of course it's a failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a position not shared by 90% of your customers, and you're guaranteed failure. It really doesn't matter what the law says is right. It's economics, and the RIAA has failed or will fail, one way or the other.
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.
And many are not wondering anymore. The ultimate failure of DRM was predicted a few years ago on these very forums. Thanks for playing anyway.
Don't drink and download. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.'""
Prohibition.
NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Insightful)
(seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
Re:The legality of file sharing? (Score:2, Insightful)
What doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some?! Wondering?! To date they've convinced the internet audience they so desperately wanted that the entire music industry, most telecoms companies, and quite a few governments are a parade of cash-guzzling corporation-fellating litigation-whores, and done absolutely nothing to peer-to-peer file sharing itself. Where is there any room for doubt as to its failure? It's like trying to give a guy CPR, but realising after hours of effort that you've brutally beaten the guy and his entire living bloodline to death with their own shoes instead.
Pretty much fail (Score:5, Insightful)
If they meant to reduce file sharing, total failure there as there's been no slowdown. If they meant to give back to the artists, failure on their part as any winnings/settlements has only gone to fund more litigation. Not only that, they only have one substantive win which may be declared a mistrial as the judge reconsiders his orders to the jury.
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
A failure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on your perspective... definitely not a failure for the trial attorneys billing by the hour.
Nostalgia (Score:3, Insightful)
It Never Was... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some are wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm...nothing's changed in 5 years, RIAA has no slam-dunk victories to show for it, thousands upon thousands of customers pissed off to the point of not buying music at all anymore, only a few million bucks extorted from victims, despite claims of billions lost....
Well, I'm NOT wondering if it's an "utter failure".
Re:Pretty much fail (Score:5, Insightful)
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
Actually, faliure or success depends on your viewpoint.
From the viewpoint of stopping piracy the failure is total. However, from the viewpoint of the companies hired to monitor and pollute p2p networks, its been a financial success, they've made many millions. Lawyers too, they've raked it in.
So failure is a matter of viewpoint. Hell, if I could have come up with some crackpot way to 'end piracy' I'd have sold it to them too and walked away richer, fully aware that all I sold them was snake oil.
Re:What doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ultimate failure of DRM was predicted a few years ago on these very forums.
Please. Back when it was called "copy protection," its ultimate failure was predicted 25-30 years ago on forums that are now defunct and lost to time.
the RIAA whinging parts (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA members have deliberately and directly avoided properly serving their customers for well over a dozen years. They have actively engaged in a campaign of tampering with both the laws and the laws' execution. They actively attack and extort those members of society least able to defend themselves, including total innocents, with ridiculous claims similar to common street thugs. One wonders what RIAA is going to do if avoidance or legal confrontation are replaced by outright vigilantism. I've seen this in other countries and the history books in other situations.
Not really a failure (Score:4, Insightful)
...if you view their goals and their audience accurately.
I argue that they didn't want to stop file sharing. Or they did want it, but didn't expect to succeeded at such an endeavor.
The purpose of this was to make filesharing seem like a small scale threat that could easily be dealt with by a campaign of lawsuits. Most of the investors in the RIAA have no idea how the recording industry works let alone why the internet is such a giant threat to it.
These lawsuits were a smokescreen to stop shareholders from realizing the record label's business model had failed. Any survival at all would involve massively reduced profit margins. If they had realized that, shareholders would have bailed from the recording industry en masse.
The goal of this legal campaign was to buy a few extra years for the the Hillary Rosens and the Jack Valentis of the world to quietly divest themselves of recording industry stock.
So good job guys! May you successfully avoid shareholder lawsuits!
meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
both van halen and heart have written the mccain campaign, more than once in the case of heart, that they do not wish their songs used to further the political campaign of a person they disagree with.
it's too bad that all these artists don't have some kind of professional organization to represent them. you know, it could collect dues from its members, and then stand up for them in cases like this, where their hard work and creativity is shamelessly co-opted as a marketing gimmick by those in direct and diametrical opposition to the artists themselves on any issue of importance.
like, an association of american industry recordists, or a recording association of american industry... something...
Re:Utter failure (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I talk to others, but here's what I'm getting:
Bastard child in the family - Obama was a bastard
DUI 20 years ago - Chappaquiddick
Tried to get earmarks for town - Duh, that's what mayor's do.
Investigation into trying to get her BIL fired - By all accounts he SHOULD have been fired and was being improperly protected.
Trying to paint her as a hypocrite is similar to criticizing her experience - the more the Dems do it, the more they open themselves up. They won't lose votes over it, but they WILL do wonders for the conservative/evangelical turnout in November. The press is doing Palin's job for her, and I'm not even sure they know it.
Actually, it's a success, and I'm not trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been a success, it just hasn't finished its course yet. First, ask yerself, What is the **AA's ideal win situation?
Consider that they're substantially in bed with the TV industry also, and while not always in concert with cable and satellite distributors, often in parallel.
The ideal situation is what WAS, with a few new techno gadgets. That is, all information and entertainment channels neatly tied up; no individual (read: Human) talents leaking around the filters, only going thru the **AA contract filtering process, etc.
This requires that home computing be made illegal, completely. It must be a crime to write software, or load non-**AA approved software, onto any computing device you own. Consider this situation:
A. Enormous technological capacity at
B.. nearly zero cost in
C... everyone's home that is
D.... available to the corporations, and
E..... completely inaccessible to non-corporate (read: Human) interests.
What corporate interests would benefit? Political parties? Law Enforcement, Dept of Homeland Insanity? M$$$? **AA??? Marketing corps of all stripes?
Every corp and govt body that is interested in getting you to buy their stuff or control your stuff will benefit if the **AA eventually wins. I can't think of one national or international corporation/govt that won't benefit by using the people's computing powers against them.
This is going to be a long fight, and the only ones that can really lose are we the people. If we win utterly, and computing freedom is assured and privacy rights restored, corporations will win in the long run, they just can't see it.
Re:Utter failure (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even that. Except for the die-hard Democrats, who really cares if the candidate's husband had a DUI 20 years ago? it has nothing to do with her qualifications and everything to do with how desperately her opponents are looking for mud to sling.
Piracy is Competition, not Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an analogy:
A carpenter becomes well known for his excellent chairs. He is approached by a salesman who offers to duplicate these chairs in a factory and sell them all over the world. The carpenter agrees to this plan when told that he will receive $1 for each chair sold. And of course, he can continue making chairs by hand for people who want a more personal performance.
Years go by, the carpenter makes some money, but realizes that the salesman is making millions for doing virtually nothing.
Then one day, someone figures out how to make identical copies of his chair and posts plans for it on the Internet. Now anyone with a saw and some wood can make a perfect copy of the chair. Those who don't have the time can still buy it from the salesman or pay a bit more to get one from the carpenter.
The chair made by the carpenter is like a rock concert.
The chair from the salesman is a CD.
The chair you make yourself is a digital copy from the Internet.
There is no way this would be considered wrong, illegal or immoral if we were actually talking about some chair design like an Adirondack or even some fancier newer design like an aeron. Nor would providing plans for others to make copies be considered illegal since there is no loss to the carpenter. His inventory is not short, his supply stock is not depleted.
But the salesman would be pissed, because his revenue is dependent on need and achieved with virtually no effort on his part. Now, there is less need through no effort on the part of the consumer. This is direct competition so the natural response is to petition the government to make this illegal and protect his business.
We have a long history of protecting businesses through regulation. It's anti-competitive, anti-consumer, tends to create monopolies and is basically a bunch of corrupt politicians taking money from thieves who would like the barn doors left open.
The only way to hasten the demise of an organization like the RIAA and its member companies is to stop buying content that you can either copy yourself or acquire directly from the artist. Support your artists, go to their concerts and if they sell direct, buy their albums. But we need to stop buying anything distributed through the channel and starve these guys until the music distribution model becomes more like chair design and construction.
Re:Of course it's a failure-Stardock. (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: >>> Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.
Well.
Duh.
The War on Bittorrent has been as much a failure as the War on Drugs or the Prohibition on Alcohol. People want their pleasures, and no amount of threats is going to stop them from acquiring want they desire. Gov't and corporate entities need to find a more effective solution to deal with these problems:
Drugs/Alcohol - legalized but strictly regulated w/ severe punishment for abusers (DUI)
Bittorrent - embrace the technology instead of trying to kill it; sell the episodes & movies for a low-cost rate of $1 per movie or 10 cents per episode