RIAA Settlement: Possible Consumer Payback

KoopaTroopa writes "Over on Ars Technica they are running a story about the RIAA handing out consumer payments as a settlement to a price-fixing class action. If you bought a recording at retail between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 22, 2000, claim your money." As usual, the lawyers win a lot more than you will, but the process is pretty painless if you'd like to collect part of the settlement money; you may recall this earlier story about the settlement.

Not guarenteed.

[gmiller123456]

Note that you're not guarenteed to get anything. They've apparently already settled on how much they'll pay, and it'll be divided amongst everyone who signs up. It it gets down the less than $5/person, all of it goes to charity.

Oops, now nobody will get any money...

[Anonymous Freak]

From the FAQ:

If the number of claims filed would result in refunds of less than $5.00 per claimant, there will be no cash distribution to individual consumers. Rather, the cash portion of the Settlement shall be distributed to not-for-profit, charitable, governmental or public entities to be used for music-related purposes or programs for the benefit of consumers who purchased Music Products.

Posting this to slashdot will draw ALOT more claimants, and therefore, reduce the amount each claimant will recieve. That will probably drop it below the $5/each mark, and then nobody will get any money. (Well, some nonprofit or the government will..)

It's not the RIAA that they're suing

[registered_user]

The RIAA is an seperate body. Individual distributors are being sued. They are listed on the page:

The Distributor Defendants are: Capitol Records, Inc. d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc., and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc., Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp., WEA, Inc., Warner Music Group, Inc., Warner Bros. Records, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc., and UMG Recordings, Inc.; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc. and BMG Music; and Sony Music Entertainment Inc. The Retailer Defendants are: MTS, Inc. d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp., and Trans World Entertainment Corp.

quite whining and read the form

[endoboy]

they don't ask for your social security #, they ask for the last 4 digits. They also don't ask for mother's maiden name

If you're unwilling to give them your name and address, how precisely do you wish for them to send you the $$$?

Re:No thanks RIAA,already gave at

[aridhol]

I don't know how much you pay, but here are the numbers for Canada [ccfda.ca]. The CCFDA (Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access) is trying to fight it.

Huh?

[autopr0n]

Do you live in canada? If not, why are you using "music" CD-Rs rather then "data" ones for your music? (the only diffrence between the two is that music disks will work in special music drives, have serial copy protection (no copies of copies) and are taxed by the RIAA. Data CDs work in music players, have no SCP, and cost only a few cents, in general)

Re:Amen

[onepoint]

well to wonder or not, this is what I did,

I called my credit card sompany and told the guy I want to have my card checked for signature with a passport or Drivers liscense, then I want the phone calls I make to them to confirm a few things, I ask for a list of things they coudl ask
1) date of birth
2) if a po box then the real address
3) telephone Number matching
4) LAST 4 digit's of your SS number
5) e-mail address if you have one for your CC

and the list went on.

Something is not right when someone ask you for the last 4 digit's of your SS#. I hope it's not a con.

Mike

Re:quite whining and read the form

[k3v0]

social security numbers are decided based on your birth state and other info. this article is pretty interesting http://www.howstuffworks.com/social-security-numbe r.htm

Re:It's not the RIAA that they're suing

[ChaosDiscord]

The RIAA is an seperate body. Individual distributors are being sued.

But the individual distributors in question are the largest and most powerful members of the RIAA, the leadership. For all intents and purposes, the RIAA was sued.

Re:No thanks.

[Mitchell Mebane]

whois for musiccdsettlement.com [networksolutions.com]

The domain is registered to Rust Consulting, Inc. [rustconsulting.com] They specialize in technology class-action lawsuits. And their address matches that in the whois records.

Looks legit to me.

Re:Huh?

[quintessent]

Data CDs in the U.S. are still RIAA taxed, but at a lower rate. Live and learn

WRONG Re:Big whoop ...

[LookSharp]

You didn't even pay attention to the site you were cutting and pasting from. No receipts or other documents are required, and it is limit one claim per consumer. And I personally can guarantee that I have purchased at least one major-label CD during the perios in question.

Speak for yourself; unless more than two million people file a claim, everybody who bothers spending 60 seconds to fill out the simple form gets a check for $20. I'll take that.

Re:Ah it's about time something is done!

[Creepy]

yeah, but distrobution and retail markups make up a good chunk, as well. As you said, artists usually end up with squat (songwriters get paid better than artists, but artists/songwriters still get paid squat). The good, low risk money was in becoming a songwriter and NOT a musician/performer - they make 10 cents a song rather than 1 cent (you may need to adjust that number for 8 years of inflation). This rate is set by some organization, I think ASCAP in America, but it's been a while since I dealt with it.

Remember that retail stores typically double the prices, so your $15 CD is bought by them for $7.50, ~$3-4 is taken by the distributor, unless the record company is also the distributor (Time Warner, for instance), and the remaining $4.00 is split between the artist and the record company, usually 98% recording company, 2% artist. The record company then claims most of their money was spent on promotional and distrobution costs (which may also get taken out of the artist's paycheck).

Record companies claim to take the risk, which they do, to a degree, by fronting money for recording, but I seriously doubt many of them don't break even, as they still expect the artist to pay back expenses out of their 2%, and if they don't break even they "lost" money. Major artists can get 20-50% of the cash rather than 2%, but I don't know any of them (I know a lot of bankrupt bands, tho).

Re:I concur, RIAA still gets bled

[Golias]

Even if you only see $5, it adds up to a large penalty against RIAA

Holy shit, the ignorance flying around here is blinding today. Sorry to single you out, but you are one of many who seems to completely misunderstand what you are signing up for here.

1. The RIAA loses nothing. This is a lawsuit against a group of record labels. Yes, the RIAA lobbies on their behalf, but if anything this will result in the labels investing more money into the RIAA, to help insure that they don't get stung like this again over something.

2. Your signing up does not mean more money gets added to the penalty. The penalty was already settled by the ambulance-chasing lawyers who set up this class action... and it ain't much. You signing up just means the tiny fraction of the settlement that actuallly goes to those who were "damaged" by high CD prices gets divided up more thinly.

3. The settlement didn't do jack shit about high CD prices. Go to your local record store, and notice that albums that used to cost $13 about two years ago are now going for $17. Like almost all corporate class-action lawsuits, the lawyers get rich convincing you that you got "free money" coming, but the reality is that the costs of litigation and penalties are typically passed on to you, the consumer, while the handful of lawyers who suckered you into helping them make the suit look legitimate are making off like bandits... which is what they are.

If you want to fight the RIAA, give money (more than $5 would be nice) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or 2600's legal defense fund, or Senator Hatch's campaign fund. Signing up for this settlement just makes you a participant in the over-litigious culture we are rapidly becoming, while doing nothing about the problem other than make you feel like you are doing something about it.

Injunctive relief

[MacAndrew]

The lawyers did pause to wonder whether the lawsuit would alter the defendants' behavior. The Notice of Proposed Settlement [musiccdsettlement.com] provides:

Injunctive Relief

The Settlement Agreements with the Distributor Defendants and the Retailer Defendants each provide for injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs and Distributor Defendants have agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction, which would prohibit the Distributor Defendants for a period ending August 30, 2007 from adopting, maintaining, enforcing or threatening to enforce any policy, practice or plan which makes receipt of any cooperative advertising or other promotional funds contingent on the price or price level at which any product is advertised or promoted. Distributor Defendants would also be prohibited from agreeing with any dealers to control or maintain the resale price at which the Dealer may offer for sale or sell such Distributor Defendant's Product. Additionally, Distributor Defendants could not for a period ending August 30, 2005, announce resale or minimum advertised prices of product and unilaterally terminate those who fail to comply because of such failure. Distributor Defendants may however, announce suggested retail prices for their Product.

The Settlement Agreements entered into by Plaintiffs and each of the Retailer Defendants, also contain injunctive provisions. These injunctions would prohibit the Retailer Defendants for a period of five years from soliciting, demanding, requesting, advocating or encouraging any distributor or wholesaler of music product to adopt or implement any policy, practice or plan which makes receipt of any cooperative advertising or other promotional funds contingent upon the price or price level at which any music product is advertised, promoted, offered or sold.

No, I don't know where they got these magic termination dates....

Re:been around for a while

[MisterFancypants]

then it goes to a charity (I'm guessing the the EFF),

Why would you guess the EFF? What has the EFF got to do with price fixing?

The EFF won't see a dime of this money, and rightly so. I'm not anti-EFF, but ... again, they have nothing to do with this.

Just called Rust Consulting

[NotesSauceBoss]

Talked to a fellow there named Matt Potter to get a little more personal connection to this stuff.

The Notice of Proposed Settlement is available at: http://www.musiccdsettlement.com/english/notice.ht m and includes both the individual state's AGs on the case, as well as actually listing the URL for the website itself.

Mr. Potter stated that the detail of information is to ensure that fradulent claims aren't filed -- primarily by attempting to prevent the same person from filing multiple times.

I suggested they put in a privacy notice. We'll see.

I also warned him of the impending Slashdotting. He didn't know what I meant. hehe

Re:Amen

[molarmass192]

Well ... lets see if this smells of a con job. First, who owns the musiccdsettlement.com domain:

Rust Consulting, Inc.
cmichelsen AT rustconsulting.com
Rust Consulting, Inc.
501 MARQUETTE AVE STE 700
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1208
US
612-359-2000

Ok, so Rust Consulting, and just who are these guys?

Michelsen, Claus
postmaster AT RUSTCONSULTING.COM
Rust Consulting
501 Marquette Avenue #700
Mpls , MN 55402
612-359-2000

Record expires on 07-Mar-2003.
Record created on 06-Mar-1996.

So far so good, same group of folks and it has been registered since 1996 so this didn't spring up overnight. Second, we can go to www.rustconsulting.com for a look at who we're dealing with:

Founded as the Rust Consulting Group, Inc., the Group was from the start a leader in applying computer technology to the practice of law. Using the most advanced computers and technology available, the Group computerized millions of documents in more than 500 cases such as MCI v. AT&T, Westmoreland v. CBS, and the Chem-Dyne environmental case.

Took a quick look at the site and found out that Rust Consulting is owned by SourceCorp which is publicly traded (symb: SRCP [yahoo.com]), not a typical thing for a con ring.

The only doubt that's left unresolved is why this thing is not SSL enabled. As for the SSN fear, your SSN can't be rebuilt without knowing what state your resided in when you were issued your SSN. The middle digits are of a random group that can't be related to any other info. They won't get far with just 4 digits. More info ... [ssa.gov]

It's always wise to be weary of "free money" offers since that's the fingerprint of pretty much all con jobs, but a quick bit of research shows this is most likely legit. However, if it isn't, they left all the necessary info to track them down.

A Paltry Sum of Total Awards

[mgbastard]

This is a paltry sum of total damages awarded. File a request to be excluded from the class. I will. ---from the notice---

(1) EMD shall pay $6,500,000 in Cash and $8,500,000 in Non-Cash Consideration; (2) WEA shall pay $13,650,000 in Cash and $15,750,000 in Non-Cash Consideration; (3) Universal shall pay $18,850,000 in Cash and $21,750,000 in Non-Cash Consideration; (4) Sony shall pay $12,523,500 in Cash and $14,701,500 in Non-Cash Consideration; and (5) BMG shall pay $12,776,500 in Cash and $14,998,500 in Non-Cash Consideration.

If you do not request exclusion from the proposed Settlement and you serve the Court and Counsel with timely notice, as provided on page 11 below, you have the right to appear at the Fairness Hearing and comment on whether the proposed Settlement and other matters being considered should be finally approved by the Court.

--snip several pages to page 11 as referenced---

If you do not wish to be bound by the terms of the proposed Settlement described in this Notice, you may request to be excluded from the Settlement. To do so, you MUST send a written request for the exclusion to: Compact Disc MAP Antitrust Litigation Administrator Post Office Box 1643 Faribault, Minnesota 55021-1643 Your request for exclusion must be postmarked by or before March 3, 2003, must clearly state that you want to be excluded from the Settlement, and must provide your full, legal name(s), address, telephone number, and the name and number of this Litigation (In re: Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1361). NO REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION WILL BE CONSIDERED VALID UNLESS ALL OF THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INCLUDED IN ANY SUCH REQUEST. If you do not request exclusion, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement, even if you do not file a Proof of Claim. If you validly request exclusion from the Settlement, (1) you will be excluded from the Settlement, (2) you will not share in the proceeds of the proposed settlement which are available for distribution as described above, (3) you will not be bound by any judgment or release entered in this Action, and (4) you will retain the option to pursue your claims, if timely, on an individual basis at your own expense against the Defendants.

This is not a guaranteed pay out...

[bubba_ry]

Fairness Hearing: The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to determine if the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate on May 22, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse, 156 Federal Street, Portland, Maine 04101.

You're not guaranteed this money. If, in the hearing, it is determined that the settlement is not fair, reasonable, and/or adequate, you might not see a dime.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States, a distinction is made between "consumer digital audio" media and data media. You have to pay extra for consumer audio CD-R blanks and DAT tapes, and the music recording industry gets a piece on the assumption that the media will be used to hold commercially recorded material.

Canada has gone a step farther, by placing a levy upon *all* media capable of storing audio. Even the "data" CD-R blanks, which don't work in consumer audio CD-recordable decks, are subject to the levy. Starting Jan 1 2001, the levy was raised from CDN$0.052 to CDN$0.21 (a 4x increase) for CD-R and CD-RW discs.

Re:Oops, now nobody will get any money...

[MattRog]

Quoth the site:

The Defendants have agreed to pay a combination of cash and non-cash consideration. Defendants' combined cash payments total $67,375,000. In addition, Distributor Defendants will provide $75,700,000 worth of prerecorded music compact discs.

Although I agree that /. will help dilute the pool it would take close to 3.4 million people signing up to drop the payout under $20. It would take a total of 13.4 million people to drop the price to $5.

Although SlashDot is a large site, I do not think it has the reach of 3.4, let alone 13.4, million people.

Re:Signing also says you agree.

[agrounds]

In fact, everyone should go beyond just passively not claiming their share of this settlement, and actually submit the appropriate paperwork to exclude yourselves, in essence rejecting the settlement. We all know this isn't a fair compensation, and the more people who speak out and say so the better the chances that a more equitable settlement will be reached.

I couldn't agree more! I'll even take the liberty of helping this along:

Just so you don't have to find the means of doing this:
From the settlement:

If you do not wish to be bound by the terms of the proposed Settlement described in this Notice, you may request to be excluded from the Settlement. To do so, you MUST send a written request for the exclusion to:

Compact Disc MAP Antitrust Litigation Administrator
Post Office Box 1643
Faribault, Minnesota 55021-1643

Your request for exclusion must be postmarked by or before March 3, 2003, must clearly state that you want to be excluded from the Settlement, and must provide your full, legal name(s), address, telephone number, and the name and number of this Litigation (In re: Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1361). NO REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION WILL BE CONSIDERED VALID UNLESS ALL OF THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INCLUDED IN ANY SUCH REQUEST.

Re:No thanks RIAA,already gave at

[NanoGator]

"I don't know how much you pay, but here are the numbers for Canada [ccfda.ca]. The CCFDA (Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access) is trying to fight it. "

I read recently that they've collected over 28 million, but none of it has yet to reach musicians like they claimed it would.

I didn't exactly have a stunned expression on my face when I read that. I'm sorry, but I don't remember where I read it unless it was on Wired.com within the last week.

Re:Does taking the $20 limit further action?

[Steve Hamlin]

If I take the $20 does that mean, either implicitly or explicitly, that I'm claiming full restitution?

Yes

According to this [musiccdsettlement.com], as well as every other similar class action settlement I've seen, participation in the class settlement is a final resolution of your claims.

Note that you need to take affirmative action to NOT be in the class. If you do not specifically remove yourself from the class, you ARE IN the class

You can withdraw from the class, and pursue legal action on your own. This would be foolish in this case.

Re:Huh?

[shepd]

>I haven't figured out yet whether they're deliberately lying or just ignorant.

They're actually neither.

The audio CDs are more flexible. They can be recorded in any equipment, whereas the "regular" CDs require either a data drive, a professional audio CD recorder, or a newer consumer CD audio recorder that has a built in DAC/ADC stage.

They also sound better. Unlike regular data CDs, which when recorded in the newer consumer CD audio recorders are recorded after a pass through the DAC/ADC, the audio CDs are a bit-for-bit copy.

It might be sly, it might even be misleading, but it isn't lying, or ignorance.

Not RIAA, but 8 companies

[Chanc_Gorkon]

The companies, including Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Bertelsmann's BMG Music and EMI Group, plus retailers Musicland Stores, Trans World Entertainment and Tower Records....NOT the RIAA. Although that group about covers it. Do a search before posting the story.

Re:I wonder if anyone noticed

[Anonymous Coward]

I would expect at least 50% of that settlement to go directly to the lawyers...and they get their money first :(

Re:Huh?

[Bigfishbowl]

Come one, by definition a pass through, DAC/ADC doesn't really exist. Either it converts it to analog or it doesn't. Passing through implies no change. The only difference between "Audio" and regular CD's is a bit on the CD's that the manufactures set at production.

It might be sly, it might even be misleading, but it isn't lying, or ignorance.
No, its defiantly ignorance. Digital is digital. Its not some magic form of communication; its merely the approximation of the analog word we live in. Nothing more and most certainly nothing less.