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.'"
"Wondering?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Wondering?" (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasnt there a story a while back saying that they'd made like $140million in total from filesharing lawsuits?
This amount included the settlements against Napster etc.
The recording artists involved in the Napster case were suing the RIAA because they'd not seen a single cent of it.
Either way, I'm sure they (the RIAA) see it as a success as most of the people sued so far have settled without a fight.
A blatant failure in more ways than one (Score:1, Interesting)
I know of no other business that expects the customer to keep them financially afloat that thinks they can treat their customers with disdain and they will not suffer in the end for it. I am sure that the idea that suing college kids, who are the music industries future customers, will come in full circle to reflect that the majors have nothing they are interested in.
It was once repeated that in the trial Clara Duckworth (I hope I got the spelling correct) said that it was a money pit, this sue'em all. Apparently they have more money than they need and far less sense. So they must be doing far better than all the piracy hoop-a-la leads you to believe if you buy into their spiel.
I am personally repulsed by this idea and the method that has been used to bring it to fruition. I see all sorts of poor folk all bogged down in this. What I don't see is politicians and their families in the middle of it. While they claim it is not discriminatory, it sure looks like the victims are most carefully chosen. After all, kids of the CEO's of big music don't have to worry about sue'em all, despite of public admissions to the nature of doing so. For them a good talking to appears to be the solution that is not available to the rest of the public.
While I am at the subject, isn't it strange that nothing has been heard about lawsuits at Harvard University? All the other colleges in the country are getting them, except Harvard. Could it be there was a private meeting at some point where Harvard read to them from the good book? (their version being the law books)
I have no idea on all that. I do know about the publicity that has been generated by all this. I for one have ceased to buy from the majors. I don't trust them. At the way things have been going, somewhere in the future there may come the day when they decide there is some other point they wish to do away with and you may become the test point in court at great expense to prove/disprove their next legal theory. If you don't deal with their products, it is doubtful you will ever be the guinea pig.
They have done themselves a huge amount of damage in the public's eyes. The PR they have generated is full of ill will. They will have to go a long way to win me back to the store to buy any of their products. Everything about them screams slime and I am a potential customer, I am not a potential consumer.
Of course it's a failure-Stardock. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this guy said it best [sinsofasolarempire.com].
I don't know... (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty much everyone using
That being said, I'm forced to wonder if the RIAA has been more successful than they're being credited for. Many/most of my friends don't share the same enthusiasm for all things tech that I do, and I don't think its a leap to say they're less educated about these things. Not a single one of them has been prosecuted by the RIAA, nor have they been threatened by the RIAA. To the best of my knowledge, none of them even knows anybody who has been threatened by the RIAA, much less prosecuted by it.
Nonetheless, I hear things like "I don't download anymore, its not worth the risk" or "I just use iTunes now, its much safer" on a regular basis (we'll say bi-weekly for the purpose of this conversation). That's not hearing the same thing from the same person, but rather hearing these things from lots of different people. I hear it from people at work. I hear it from my distant family. And I'm starting to conclude that with the perceived threat of prosecution by the RIAA, coupled with the ease of using services such as iTunes or Amazon, there is a movement underway (possibly a massive one, depending on how you define this) towards "safe", legitimate file downloading.
I heard a lot about this in college, which is where a lot of RIAA hype was focused. I can't speak to the high school and younger crowd (who may be more advanced with file sharing, I don't know), but most of the people I know who are unfamiliar with Bit Torrents but continue to download music, games, movies, etc., are transitioning to doing so in a legal way. I can't say with any certainty how much of this is due to the fear of prosecution, but I can say I hear a lot about it, and how its just not worth it anymore.
Here's one other thought, slightly off topic: I've been using Pandora for about a year now. While I still use Bit Torrent occasionally to download music, I've found using Amazon a pleasant, fair experience when I find new music from bands I'm interested in hearing more of. Bit Torrents generally only offer entire albums, and its nice to not have to wait for an entire album when all you want sometimes is a single song.
my direct experience with a large TV network (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a software engineer who shoots photography in a 'serious amateur' mode.
like many, I have a public sharing site (I use flickr but others are basically the same kind of 'publish and show' concept).
the cool thing about the public networking sites is the amount of eyeballs that view them.
a few weeks ago, I got email from a representative from a cable tv network (a large well-known one that has a 3 letter 'call sign', sort of like how HBO uses 3 letters to ID their network. it isn't HBO but its along those lines and just about as big). the rep said that they found my photo (or set of photos) and thought they might be useful in a tv 'spot' that they were producing and airing in the next few months. they wanted to get my permission to use it in some way on their show.
of course, I was flattered. I asked what their terms would be and what kind of payment they would have in mind. remember, this is a for-profit TV network (ie, not PBS) and they *should* have proper budget for things, even ancillary things like my still photo.
well, we went back and forth on email for a few rounds and I even consulted some folks in the biz that are in touch with common practices in this industry. it turns out that, more and more, media companies are trolling the free photo sites and trying to take advantage of 'amateurs' by offering NO PAYMENT but only trinkets (tee shirts, comp dvd of the show, and stuff like that) but no payment, no royalties and basically asking for unlimited rights to do whatever they want with the work of art, even on 'future media types' not yet developed. perpetual license - and I, the artist, get spud-nutz (so to speak).
is that fair?
I hear all this talk, over and over again, about artists should be paid. so I returned the sentiment back to papa media and papa slammed the door in my face.
I asked for a simple low-value (relatively) one-time payment and immediately the reply was 'sorry, but all the others we contacted offered their photos for free and we have no budget to pay guys like you'.
I just LOVE this double-standard. when someone downloads a song for free, there are THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS being asked for in damages. but its ok for a major studio network to ask for FREE WORK even though its original, creative and of value.
so, it seems, my photos won't be seen on that nationally airing show, but I also have what I wanted from this exchange. I sent a message, however small, that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. I don't expect my protest to count for a lot, but I did what I could do and denied them free use of my creative work. I'm sure they'll move on to the next guy on the list but I have at last made my statement and stood my ground. and I still have the fun compliment of knowing they WANTED to use my work on national TV (and on the eventual dvd that always gets made from TV specials).
do I have any more respect for the big media companies? in fact I have lost even more respect for them - and I didn't think that such a thing was mathematically possible.
big media says artists should be paid. but they clearly don't believe this - my direct recent experience is proof of that.
Re:my direct experience with a large TV network (Score:3, Interesting)
You should, in my humble opinion, blog about that and get some more eyeballs on your text/message. IANAL but you can likely freely name the TLA network by name. If I were you I would also be attentive to see if they went to the hosting site to try to get permission from them (many TOS seem to allow them to have a right to distribute your work without your additional consent as a part of the contract) and/or just used your work without your permission.
Anyhow, I liked your message and I hope you have the time and interest to get more eyeballs on it. Your post, in and of itself, would have made a nice /. article.
Can't call it a failure (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything that takes in that much money can't be called a failure. It's wishful thinking to say otherwise. Judges are still finding in their favor, and nobody has been able to put a stop to their extortion racket yet. Their lawsuit racket is a machine that requires practically no work, and takes in thousands of dollars per victim. A thousand letters go out, and a couple of million dollars come back in. Hardly a failure.
It's immoral, and we hope that mainstream non-geek people will see it eventually...but currently, as much as it pains me to say so - it's a win for them. A big one.
If we convince ourselves that we've won and walk away when we haven't - then we are the ones who've lost. So let's not say what we hope things are. Let's say what they really are, and go from there.