Slashdot Log In
RIAA Settles Suits Against Students
Posted by
michael
on Thu May 01, 2003 04:14 PM
from the pay-up-and-no-one-gets-hurt dept.
from the pay-up-and-no-one-gets-hurt dept.
wo1verin3 writes "Cnet's News.Com has reported that the RIAA has settled the suits with four students accused of sharing songs. The settlements will see each student making payments to the RIAA totaling between $12,000 and $17,000, split into annual installments between 2003 and 2006."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the RIAA should sue all of us, and then we'll all turn to buying CDs! Brilliant!
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one won't let this stop me though
Parent
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't think it would deter downloaders as much as it would potential P2P software writers. Remember, these students wrote software that one reporter described as "mini-Napster."
If anything P2P will move more underground (compromised servers, encryption, passwords, etc) which will serve the RIAA pretty well as Joe User will probably not be able to keep up with the newest 'warez sites.' A barrier to entry was just erected today.
Parent
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point, years ago most non-computer people I know were talking about napster and how bad it was that people were stealing music. Today, even Joe Blow knows that the record industry is acting like a bunch of spoiled assholes and activly going after a bunch of poor college students for outragous fines. This IS being reported in non-geek media and people ARE starting to get the picture. This will hurt the RIAA.
Unfortunatly that is probably what they want. They already have congress convinced that no matter how much of a profit they make they SHOULD have made much more and p2p is always to blame. Worse business for them means more laws in their favor.
Finkployd
Parent
Re:That'll Teach 'Em (Score:5, Interesting)
The legal forces of the RIAA have been tasked with something impossible. Control everyone.
Every dictator who's ever tried to do this before has eventually fallen back on the same tactic: Terror. If you make people fear for their lives for doing what you don't want them to, you can control and them more easily.
Unlike fascist dictators, the RIAA doesn't quite have the power to randomly make people dissapear. They haven't quite bought those laws yet. They're working in it, however. This is just an interim step.
Parent
compared to tuition... (Score:5, Funny)
but geez, poor scapegoats, I could be next...and school leaves me broke enough already.
$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, that does sound pretty good, would you pay, say $59 a month or something for unlimited mp3s? I might...
Re:$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you'll find it's OK. Digital technology nowadays can lower the Khz of the recording, and input all those little scratches and blips you're used to - you don't need to use the gramophone.
Parent
Re:$12000 buys how many songs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that's a severe exaggeration perpetuated by the "analog audiophile" (note the quotes) community.
Yes, sampling simplifies an analog waveform. Theoretically, analog has infinite bandwidth, whereas a digital signal has a cap at a frequency depending on the sampling rate (Nyquist frequency = 1/2 of sampling rate - thus, on a 44.1 kHz-sampled CD, the highest frequency you can possibly record is 22.05 kHz. It gets a little worse than this by the need to use filters to be 40 dB down [Redbook standard] at the Nyquist frequency, so they really start rolling off around 20 kHz or so).
So, yes, you do have to 'simplify' a recorded analog waveform to put it on a CD.
However, ask yourself this - does vinyl have infinite bandwidth? You think so? Well, say you have harmonics up at 50 kHz (which some sounds do) - do you think the mass of the needle/arm combination is able to move that fast? Nope.
Also, are you able to press vinyl with enough resolution to put a 50 kHz tone into it? Nope. Maybe possibly if you're doing your "pressing" with a laser, but other than that, no. Plus, you need those waves to be pretty damn deep (high amplitude) in that vinyl for them to move the needle. Otherwise the needle point will just skip right over 'em. And speaking of which, you need a needle sharp enough and fine enough to ride those 50 kHz grooves... which doesn't currently exist.
Then, you need pre-amps and amplifiers to reproduce a 50 kHz tone (tough, but not impossible), and speakers that can reproduce a tone that high (nearly impossible, and really freakin' expensive)... not to mention ears that can hear it.
In short, CDs have bandwidth limitations. But so do vinyl records. And a theoretical best vinyl has a lower signal-to-noise ratio than a theoretical best CD - and when you start talking about the high-res formats, SACD or DVD-A, there's no contest.
Records don't suck, they were great for their time. But they've been surpassed.
-T
Parent
how to pay off ? (Score:5, Funny)
Exaggeration theatre (Score:5, Funny)
Woah!
They pirated seven CDs each?
and how much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and how much (Score:5, Insightful)
That got a "+Funny" mod, but I think it is a legit question. If the RIAA keeps talking about how "we" are hurting the artists, what measures are they taking to give the artists restitution?
Parent
Re:and how much (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahh, a fresh mind unspoiled by the cynicism that comes with watching the RIAA's and MPAA's actions
Parent
Re:and how much (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, the RIAA should be charging the artists for copyright protection.
Hmmm, kind of like "protection money", eh?
Parent
Re:and how much (Score:5, Funny)
Well, $70,000 went for legal fees. $19,000 for publicity, $15,000 for fancy lunches, $11,000 for limo rides, and $45,000 for clothing. We figure the artists owe them somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000.
Pay up, suckas.
Parent
Re:and how much (Score:5, Funny)
They get 30% and the RIAA gets 100%. How, you ask? The artists will have to pay a 30% "protection fee" for the protection against piracy the RIAA has bestowed upon them.
Parent
Apple pricing suddenly looking better? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple pricing suddenly looking better? (Score:5, Interesting)
But on another note, Kudos to apple for pulling off a service I might actually use one day
They seem to have a nice selection of some of the rarer stuff I'm interested in, which is very neat.
Parent
wow... thats.. (Score:5, Funny)
Scare Tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
A Good Defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Was paying the $17,000 really in the end the wiser decision? It just seems like he had a solid argument, especially given the recent development with Morpheus and Grokster.
Re:A Good Defense? (Score:5, Informative)
The US doesn't have loser-pays, although you can sue someone for your legal fees...
Parent
Law Firm Names (Score:5, Funny)
"...said Howard Ende, a Drinker Biddle, and Reath attorney representing..."
How do legal firms wind up with names this stupid? There is the oft-mentioned Dewey, Cheatham and Howe but maybe in this case they should have gone for Bendham, Ohver and Quick.
Besides, in my book if your last name is "Biddle," you're automatically an asshole.
My music sharing idea (Score:5, Interesting)
It is legal for me to listen to a CD and then sell it to a friend, buy it back, etc, over and over.
Let's say that we form a Co-op with 100 members. Each member kicks in $100, giving us a budget of $10,000 with which to purchase CDs. $10 from each member is reserved. The CDs are ripped and encoded.
Let's say I want to listen to a CD. My $10 on reserve buys that CD from the Co-op. While I own the CD, I get to listen to the encoded music (I do not take physical possession). During that time, no other Co-op member may listen to the CD (unless there are additional copies available for purchase due to popularity).
Essentially, a locking protocol would maintain a 1:1 relationship between the listener and physical media.
Once I am done listening, I sell the CD back to the Co-op and my $10 is freed for the next selection.
Is this legal? Has it been tried? Thanks!
Re:My music sharing idea (Score:5, Interesting)
That was essentially the idea behind the my.mp3.com service (you put a CD in your drive, mp3.com software figures out what CD it is, you can download mp3s of that CD from any computer once you login, occasionally you have to furnish the CD again). My mp3.com didn't last long. The RIAA put a stop to it almost immediately.
An identical idea was/is being tried with ROMs: essentially an online video game rental service. Last I heard Nintendo and their ilk were trying their damndest to shut it down.
Of course, it seems obvious to us that such an idea is clearly within the bounds of technology, the law, and reason. The way Nintendo and the RIAA see it, however, is that they can simply get more money by making everyone buy their own copies of games and music, so that's what they're pushing for, technology, the law, and reason be damned.
Parent
Well, they paid for it! (Score:5, Funny)
I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Let's set up a fund for them (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone?
Re:Let's set up a fund for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you'll create a cycle where the RIAA keeps filing cases and the settlement amounts keep getting higher, because they will be funded by warm-hearted individuals such as yourself.
Parent
Re:Let's set up a fund for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws can be made against anything. It doesn't mean it's actually wrong to do that thing.
I use Kazaa. I buy CDs. I've bought CDs because I've used Kazaa.
I plan to buy the new Radio Head album when it comes out, purely because of the "leaked" tracks, from "Hail To The Thief."
I've never bought a RadioHead album before in my life, and I'd never have probably heard the songs that made me want to buy the CD, in the first place, either.
It's not a black and white issue.
Parent
Awful precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
1) There will be tons of lawsuits filed.
2) Million-dollar lawsuits are unpayable for the "common people," but $15,000 is well within reach. That means those sued will _have_ to pay it, and no judge will dismiss the settlement. It's feasible and doable to pay $15,000 over five years. Chump change to the RIAA, yes -- but most importantly: This will be a self-supporting business. Settlement money will fund new lawsuits. The RIAA is not after the money, they're out to threaten and terrorize anyone who uses file-swapping, and literally, the lawsuits will "pay for themselves."
This stinks... If you thought the Microsoft tax was bad, get ready for the RIAA tax!
And with this... (Score:5, Informative)
Time to expand my musical tastes.
independent-artists.com [independent-artists.com]
boycott-riaa.com [boycott-riaa.com]
Why RIAA Keeps Getting Hacked [wired.com]
RIAA Affiliated Labels [riaa.org]
Hmmm. Can't seem to get to the RIAA site right now...
They shouldn't have settled... (Score:5, Insightful)
What they should have done is not bothered hiring attorneys at all, appeared pro se, and then taken it to a jury trial and turned it into a circus. Believe me, that scenario would have the RIAA shaking in their boots. There would be massive publicity, the RIAA would have been completely trashed before it was over and no one would have cared who won in the end. This is their nightmare scenario, and if anyone else out there gets sued, don't take the easy road with settlement. Go in there and humiliate the RIAA.
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
And they would have funded this...how?
Of course, this is a travesty of justice because the law wielded by the RIAA is simply inconsistent with societal norms. I would have loved to see the RIAA sue Bill Gates for the Windows Networking code that allowed this lawsuit to succeed, but they weren't that stupid. The RIAA hand-picked their targets with the expectation of this outcome.
Don't blame the students for settling...they probably couldn't afford to do otherwise. Instead, ask these questions: If "P2P piracy" violates the DMCA, why isn't the US Department of Justice getting more involved? Why has the RIAA pursued the civil court path instead of putting pressure on the US DOJ? And what flaw in our system of law has given the power of law-enforcement to a body of five corporations?
I agree with the spirit of your post, but don't blame the victims. Attack the culprit.
--K.
Parent
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Mod points all gone, but you are right. What's worse is that they really should have fought this, because, as a recent poster pointed out [slashdot.org], the Audio Home Recording Act specifically says that noncommercial recording is legal. (Some people rebutted this with the point that computers are not techically digital audio recording devices, but that isn't so. Most major computer manufacturers nowadays specifically market their machines with the "Rip, Burn, Mix" message. That classifies them as exempt under the AHRA.)
Parent
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I think I speak for us all when I say... (Score:5, Informative)
The AHRA doesn't exempt digital recording devices in the general common sense definition of the term. It creates a NEW definition of what constitutes a digital recording device, and only exempts THOSE.
And be fucking thankful, too.
Because if computers qualified as DRDs under the AHRA, 17 USC 1002 would REQUIRE that computers use SCMS (a sort of DRM), or a workalike. And section 1003 would REQUIRE that computer manufacturers and importers pay royalties to RIAA, ASCAP, etc. That would suck.
DAT is an AHRA-type DRD. Computers are NOT.
Don't believe me? Go read the Diamond v. RIAA case and get a clue.
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh really! People I know who were caught with illegal drugs in college weren't fined anywhere near this much. That is, the very few that were stupid and obvious enough to get caught.
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Informative)
This is NOT the same as Joe Sixpack hosting gigs of mp3s on his own computer and making them available to everyone else, this is a matter of going after students writing software that has the potential to be used maliciously (sound familiar?)
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, one of these guys was running a search engine. Since when is that illegal!?
I'd love to see someone create a system that actually allowed true borrowing of other people's music/movies
You may have heard of this - it's called a library.
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course there's a "hole" in it, you dickhead. Hold a fucking microphone up to the fucking speaker. What the fuck.
Calling shit like that a "hole" completely misses the point. Nobody cares if you ""tee" stdout (aka >&1) from
You know what it's like? You calling this a "hole" I mean. It's like if I put up a fence around my property. You're on one side of my property, and on the other is a Krispy Kreme. You can smell those donuts, and man, you want 'em bad. You look and look at my fence, but then you suddenly realize that you can just go AROUND my property, around the perimeter of my fence, to get to the Krispy Kreme. And after you do, you come back with your face smeared with glaze and say, "Hey, d00d, there's a hole in your fence look how clever I am!!!!!1" And I'm all, "Shut the fuck up you fat fucking pig, you don't even understand what my fence is trying to protect so you just shut your fucking mouth. Bitch."
Yeah. That's what it's like, that shit right there. Yeah.
Parent
Re:You don't speak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Under the DMCA you can get jail-time.
That's exactly why the DCMA should be repealed. It lets the RIAA, the MPAA, Adobe, etc. shift the cost of enforcing their copyrights onto the taxpayers.
Copyright violations are normally a civil offence, meaning if you violate my copyright I can sue you. But under DCMA, if the material is in digital format violating my copyright suddenly becomes a criminal offence. Why?
Parent
Re:Not just distributing songs (Score:5, Insightful)
More seriously, the RIAA does not want this, or similar incidents, to get to court. Because then, the judge will make a ruling, which may just be against the RIAA. By attacking small targets, they are able to push for a settlement.
Parent
Re:For the sake of the artists (Score:5, Informative)
Parent