One Man's Check From The RIAA 280
c0rk writes "I received my $13.86 check today. This was my claim in the Compact Disk Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. I wrote in detail about the letter/check I received here in my blog and posted a readable image of said documentation (not the check though...sorry). Score 1 for the consumer!"
Ya know... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ya know... (Score:5, Funny)
Sticking it to the RIAA (-$13.86)
Getting a Slashdot-induced bandwidth bill of $3,000: Priceless.
Way to go.
Re:Ya know... (Score:3, Funny)
Making fun of people's misfortune...priceless.
-or-
Karma whoring...priceless.
Re:Ya know... (Score:5, Funny)
Getting a Slashdot-induced bandwidth bill of $3,000: $3000
Re:Ya know... (Score:2, Insightful)
If it was overpriced, why did you buy it? Don't use govt. thugs to limit the freedoms of others just because you don't like the deal they offer. There is no such thing as a right to a good or service from another person. That is an endorsement of a form of slavery. The hypocrisy of
Re:Ya know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what twisted vision of capitalism you have in mind, but nobody has the right to demolish the underpinnings of the free market by colluding to restrict competition. This settlement was A Good Thing [tm]; it was designed to remove a distortion in the market.
Re:Ya know... (Score:3, Insightful)
The ending of price fixing is a good thing. The punshment for years of the practice, which netted the record companies billions, was completely unacceptible.
-S
Re:Ya know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I figure we're even (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA can shove their check up their
Re:Ya know... (Score:2)
For once... (Score:2, Funny)
Sizzly [sizzly.com]
Re:For once... (Score:5, Insightful)
"thanks" aren't in order, unless it's in the form of "thanks for the memories - i can think of one conglomerate that will no longer get any of my money."
Super! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Super! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Super! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Super! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, over the time period this lawsuit is addressing, I bought about 10 CDs a year. If they inflated the price $1.50 per CD, then its almost right. Yes, it screws over the people who bought a ton of CDs, as more of their money was taken by the industry, whereas if you only bought 1 CD, you more or less got that CD for free. But there is no logistical way they could ask you how many CDs you bought and adjusted it for that, and be able to verify it.
Re:Super! (Score:2, Insightful)
Um (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.
But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
As it is, they're giving you a check based on the average overcharge. People who only bought a CD or two are getting the same amount as people who bought dozens or hundreds of CDs.
There's no way the RIAA is going to count reciepts for everyone that requested a check and give proportionatly the same to everyone. Do you even have reciepts for all those CDs to prove you bought them and when you bought them?
It's just a lot easier to divide the entire fine by everyone who requested compensation and give equal size checks to everyone regardless of how much they spent.
And this is perfectly reasonable since nobody forced you to buy any of those CDs. If you're mad about how much you pay for CDs, buy them used. Use that check to buy used CDs so that none of the money goes back to the RIAA. And then stop buying new CDs.
Ben
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.
But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
"
irrelevant. They where caught doing something wrong, and are being punished. The fact that is a luxary item don't enter into it.
"As it is, they're giving you a check based on the average overcharge. People who only bought a CD or two are getting the s
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that they have gotten away with charging us a LOT more than the CD costs and a LOT more profit than a tape brings in for years. I have hundreds of CD's that
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.
But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
The free-market capitalist economy does not apply only to "necessaries." When you break the rules, it doesn't matter if what you were selling is life-and-death or totally frivolous; you still broke the rules by which the system works.
Granted, I'd pref
Re:Um (Score:3, Informative)
Excuse me, but where did you get "Soviet Union" from "more socialistic world?" Sounds like you've never set foot in any of Western Europe, which is far more socialistic than the US.
In a blended socialistic/capitalistic economy, everyone gets the minimum they need, but anyone can pay more for more if they have the money. And you don't trip over homeless children when
Re:Um (Score:2)
But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
Well since the product has been proven irrelevent then we can download all we want for free, after all it has no value since we won't die without it.
Re:Um (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok compare to right now. There is still massive price fixing, and the alternative (downloading the music) results in what? Being sued. Wait, someone remind me what it's called when you put someone in a position where someone's best choice is breaking a law? Oh yeah!
extortion n.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
Re:Super! (Score:3, Interesting)
I *SHOULD* be compensated a LOT more than $14. But I don't really have any proof when I bought the CDs. I don't agree that somebody, like my Mother, who has bought a grand total of about 10 CDs in her life should receive a $3000 settlement however.
How do you manage that discrepancy? I just don't know.
Anyway, I stopped
Re:Super! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Super! (Score:2)
Re:Super! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Super! (Score:4, Informative)
When I started my band in 1996 the statutory rate for artist royalty payments was 6 cents per track. So for a CD with say, 12 songs on it, a signed artist makes 72 cents per sale of the CD *maximum*. If the artist happened to sign a "sucker deal" with their recording label, then they probably agreed to pay management fees, theft/destruction contingencies, promotional fees and assorted other gouging, bringing their take down to less than 1 cent per track. There are plenty of bands out there whose first big-label CD sold hundreds of thousands of copies but the artists earned effectively nil. (And they have only themselves to blame, for signing such an abusive contract. But anyway...)
With the actual reproduction costs of CDs down in the 10-20 cent range, the amount of money that the labels and RIAA collectively rakes in vs pays out is stupendous.
By the way, while giving people the guilt trip about stealing money from the hands of their favorite artists, think about it again. For the $20 you might have paid for a CD, only $0.72 maximum would have gone to the artist. That's a whopping 3.6% at most. Of the remaining 96.4%, probably half of it went to the retailer, whose basic expense is shelf space, and the other half went to the label. Most of that is pure profit that never would have gone anywhere near the artist in the first place. And if the artist had a sucker deal, their cut was probably less than 1/3 of a percent. Just noise.
No matter how you slice it, the RIAA is screwing everyone, and still doing a fine job of getting away with it.
Let's see... (Score:5, Funny)
Blogzine.net [blogzine.net]
Re:Let's see... (Score:2)
Re:Let's see... (Score:2)
Re:Minor quibble [OT] (Score:2)
Remeber in the US, a fag isn't a cigarette. A bonnet has no business on a car. Lift is what an elevator does. And most importantly, on this side of the pond you NEVER ask a classmate if you can "borrow" a rubber.
No admision of guilt (Score:5, Insightful)
Its just the 'challenged' pricing policies, rather than any of the stronger language that could have been used like 'illegal price fixing pricing policies'.
Re:No admision of guilt (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we bring some sort of lawsuit against them?
Is the sending of the checks some sort of "get away with it forever now that we have paid some people money for our indescretion" card?
Re:No admision of guilt (Score:2)
Re:No admision of guilt (Score:3, Insightful)
Can somebody show me a CD they think is overpriced? . . . Yes price fixing is bad, but I don't remember ever feeling like I overpaid for a CD or that a CD was too expensive.
Okay. I originally bought Fleetwood Mac's Rumors album on LP. A few years later, I bought it again on tape. A couple of years ago, I bought it yet again on CD for $16.99. Was the thrice-purchased, 30-year-old album on CD overpriced? Yes, by about $16.
Re:No admision of guilt (Score:2)
Well.. the CRIA obviously doesn't believe that because even though we Canadians are paying a blank CD levy there are still people who are going to be sued.
Re:No admision of guilt (Score:2, Informative)
Methinks you're unfamiliar with what exactly a settlement is.
Re:No admision of guilt (Score:2)
Re:No admision of guilt (Score:2)
We have seen a lot of trials go by where the accused settles out of court to pay up only on the condition that they do not have to admit guilt, in this instance the RIAA was indeed in the wrong, and the world should know it.
Sadly (Score:5, Funny)
Nice! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait...
A Modest Proposal. (Score:5, Insightful)
$13.86 isn't enough for a new CD from many stores, but you could use the money to buy an album from one of the many excellent artists from non-RIAA record labels such as Matador or Ninja Tune available from the iTunes Music Store [apple.com].
Or perhaps purchase music for download in unencumbered MP3 format directly from non-RIAA record label Warp Records [warprecords.com].
$10 thrown at the first option could get you, if you like rock music, one of the Yo La Tengo albums (if you like rock), Cat Power's "Moon Pix" album (if you like folky rock sung by a drunk manic-depressive woman), or Amon Tobin's "Supermodified" (if you like jazzy d&b-ish techno), and still leave you $3.86 for your own nefarious purposes. Any of these would be excellent choices.
From the second option, if you like electronica, $13.86 would be just enough to neatly buy Boards of Canada's probably-career-high Music Has the Right to Children album plus Autechre's probably-career-high gantz_graf EP and leave you enough money for a soda at a vending machine.
RIAA Radar (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. [magnetbox.com]
Now Go Out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now Go Out... (Score:2)
Re:Now Go Out... (Score:2, Insightful)
I donated last summer.
---
Re:Now Go Out... (Score:3, Insightful)
We should be giving him money because he was a moron? Or am I missing something?
Re:Now Go Out... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now Go Out... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership
Re:Now Go Out... (Score:2)
wow (Score:5, Interesting)
RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.
when you take all of those together, and divide 70 million or so between them, it's not as hard as a blow as we thought it was... (score +1, interesting)
on a side note, did this really need a second story (score -1, troll)
Score 1 for the consumer! (Score:4, Insightful)
The score now stands at:
The consumer: $13.86
The RIAA: $33,000,000,000
Looks like the RIAA's in real trouble now!
Re:Score 1 for the consumer! (Score:5, Insightful)
- violate laws (anti-competitive/price-fixing/accounting/privacy
- get sued
- pay fines
- continue doing exactly the same as before
Violating laws is a minor cost of doing business only while associated fines are cheaper than purchasing new, more favorable laws. Score 1 consumer, sure! I didn't know RIAA was submitting stories to Slashdot!
Hmmm - sounds familiar.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Score 1 for the consumer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Your sarcasm is only partially correct. Though the settlement constitutes a fraction of their resources, you are wrong to haphazardly label this award as insinificant. If you read page 20 of the settlement [findlaw.com], you will find the amount awarded to over 3.5 million people is $143,075,000. That is not trivial and sets a useful legal precedent. You do damage to the cause against the RIAA by belittling this victory.
Re:Score 1 for the consumer! (Score:3, Interesting)
So, for each of the 8 parent companies named as respondents, that's $17,884,375.00.
Sony Corp. earned $875 million in the last quarter of 2003. Universal Music recorded $510 million *profit* in 2002. EMI made (profitted) about $64.5 million in the first half of 2003, before swallowing Warner music. And I'm guessing the companies involved are not going to split the burden equally, either.
A
I'm gonna buy.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm gonna buy.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And a sizeable percentage of your 14-cent CD-Rs will go bad within a year.
I learned my lesson with uber-discount blanks. There's a reason why they couldn't sell them at higher prices.
Re:I'm gonna buy.... cheap stuff (Score:2)
He was also complaining about how his floppies were always going bad! I wonder why?!
I had much fewer problems.
P.S. I have dealt with Office Depot floppies at work. I have had a lot of them go bad, some right away.
Re:I'm gonna buy.... (Score:2)
Re:I'm gonna buy.... (Score:2, Informative)
RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
Now they are taking the overused advice of "adopt a new business model", which seems to be services such as Apple's iTunes Music Store, BuyMusic.com , Rhapsody, an
Ha (Score:4, Funny)
Donate it to EFF! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm putting this in anonymously because suggesting to donate to EFF is a great thing, but also a karma whore move.
So anyway, get yourself over to the EFF donate page and give them the money [eff.org]. It's quick and painless.
.
Article Text & Letter Text (Score:5, Informative)
My being part of a class action law suit paid off. This morning I received my portion of the settlement made due to the Compact Disk Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. I filed a claim to be part of this class action suit about a year or so ago... anyone having purchased a Music CD between Jan1st, 1995 and December 22nd, 2000 was eligible to redeem part of this settlement. Surprisingly, I was part of this demographic since I will on occasion purchase certain artist's CD's whom I deem worthy of my entertainment dollar.
This is essentially my being reimbursed for the financial damages I suffered as a music CD purchaser during a time when CD pricing policy was overwhelmingly unfair to the consumer. I received approximately $14.00 as restitution from both record companies and music retailers. These companies and retailers where indicted for violations of the Sherman Act which works to prevent companies from engaging in shady business practices... in this case price fixing. The defendants attempted to exploit their MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) policies to cheat the consumer. The willingness of the defendants to settle with plaintiffs (that's me) with a significant pay out, $14.00 of which will be deposited in MY bank account, more than confirms their guilt.
Here is a list of the defendants (that restitution... these are the guys supplying it):
LABELS: 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.
RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.
This victory, though not a MAJOR blow to these giant conglomerates, does feel good at time when music lovers are being actively hunted and sued for copyright infringement by the RIAA. I will more than likely use a portion of my settlement to invest in what I consider a legitimate and fair business model --- iTunes. If the RIAA had jumped on the legitimate internet distribution band wagon instead of conspiring to rob the consumer with their aging CD business model through price fixing, maybe they wouldn't be up to their ears in legal fees these days.
My thanks go out to the legal teams and active citizens who were instrumental in the success of this litigation... score one for the consumer (there is a statement you don't hear much anymore).
Here is a scan of the letter I received from the legal team representing the plaintiffs... though I'm still waiting for my personal letter of apology from the RIAA... but I'm not holding my breath. My check was attached to the bottom of this letter, but is not pictured here for obvious reasons...
*****
February, 2004
Dear New Jersey Music Purchaser:
As Lead Counsel for the Private Class Plaintiffs, we are pleased to enclose payment for your claim in the settlement of the Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. This lawsuit was brought by the Attorneys General of 43 states and three territories and by counsel for PRivate Class Plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of music CDs. In accordance with the terms of the court-approved settlement, payment is being made to music purchasers who filed a valid and timely claim.
Whether you filed your claim online at the settlement web site, www.MusicCDSettlement.com, or by mail, the attached payment represents full payment of your portion of the Settlement. Please note that the attached payment instrument must be cashed by May 20, 2004.
It is a pleasure to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion and to return value to c
the real $$ flow (Score:4, Insightful)
now....go get ya a burger.
Score 1 for the consumer???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you NUTS? The consumer got completely SCREWED on this deal. The ONLY winners here with the record labels who took in BILLIONS in extra profit because of ILLEGAL price fixing and all the consumers got back was a tiny percentage.
Score 1 my ass!
-S
Re:Score 1 for the consumer???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Score 1 for the consumer???? (Score:5, Informative)
As much as everyone is blasting the music companies on this, I actually support them on this case, because their goal was to keep the music stores, specifically the smaller mom and pop music stores, from being wiped out by the big chains. The suit didn't say $15 was too much for a CD, it said that the music companies can't stop places from selling the CDs at a loss to get people into their stores.
Why not send it to a fund to help RIAA victims. (Score:4, Insightful)
How much for JUST the rights to listen? (Score:5, Interesting)
This new 'legitimate' downloading helps answer this, kind of. I'll use iTunes as an example.
It costs $0.99 per song to download from a 'legitimate' music service.
$0.33 go to Apple for their storing and serving the song. $0.66 go to the record label.
My question is: Will they ever sell "licenses" to download songs at $0.66/song, and let you obtain the song however you please? (p2p)
Re:How much for JUST the rights to listen? (Score:2)
I think it's more complicated than that. You cannot take your copy, that you purchased and legally own, and play it for a large audience though there is no further copying involved.
Re:How much for JUST the rights to listen? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's even more complicated, because in many cases, you can do exactly that.
For example, you can throw a party, and as far as I know, no one's ever been convicted of music piracy for playing music at a party.
Radio stations have a special agreement with the RIAA etc. to play music royalty-free, so long as they credit it (since
The real loser here is the public, no really (Score:5, Insightful)
Not enough people signed on, indicating (1) not enough people were aware of their rights, (2) not enough people cared, or more likely (3) not enough people understand just how evil the RIAA is.
I'll be getting a check, and I know what I should do with it -- give it to a local school.
Re:The real loser here is the public, no really (Score:4, Insightful)
Fines don't seem to do anything to curb bad corporate behavior - I don't think we'll see any real reform until the courts start revoking charters.
Seriously, what a waste! (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wonder, why even bother? Did this 'bite' the industry, or the 'violators'? a little. Probably not much.
I don't support this kind of legal action. I believe those who make stuff have the right to set the price. They can collude, conspire, or whatever. I don't care. if they're being unreasonable, I won't buy.
How much more effective could the community who was holding this lawsuit be by boycotting and organizing? a lot more effective than a lawsuit, which is long, drawn-out, and up to the capriciousness of a judge rather than our own individual decisions. How could I get $13.86 back? by refusing to do business with unreasonable companies. People say in previous posts to this thread 'i've bought $3,000 worth of merchandise and was overcharged more than $13!' and to that I say 'why the hell did you spend $3,000 with a company you thought was overcharging you?'
Re:Seriously, what a waste! (Score:2, Insightful)
to that I say 'why the hell did you spend $3,000 with a company you thought was overcharging you?'
Because there is zero competition. If you want music by most artists, you have no choice but to get it through their record company.
Don't talk about independent labels and other crap like that. You can't call yourself a music fan and ignore he music that you like just because they overcharge you.
Re:Seriously, what a waste! (Score:2)
But in the case of collusion, you don't necessarily *know* they're being unreasonable. Because they've fixed prices industry-wide, the consumer's perception is that "this is how much this costs," not "this is how much they think I'll pay."
Competition is one of the essentials of the free-market economy. This is anti-competitive behavior. Adam
Re:Seriously, what a waste! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a horrible idea! You are saying that you dont mind if companies conspire to all set prices higher??? That means car companies could all agree to jack up the cost of all thier cars 20,000$. Or all the gas stations could charge more. Or any other product or service could skyrocket in price and you'd have no means of recourse!!! These types of laws stop monopolies and cartels. We would be so screwed if companies were allowed to price fix.
oh, no, not you too (Score:5, Insightful)
Why have Americans taken to calling themselves Consumers? Your real power lies in Law, that law is written by CITIZENS. If your preceding citizens hadnt written some pretty keen laws, you current "Consumers" would be out $13.xx.
I cant stand it when people call me, or anyone else a f'ing consumer. Its goddamn offensive.
Re:oh, no, not you too (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, it is offensive. But don't blame the semantics;
Illegal copying (Score:3, Funny)
Score one for the trial lawyers, not the consumer (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you who aren't keen to the way these settlements work, I'll enlignten. The lawyers get paid right away based on the total amount of the settlement. The consumers, plaintiff's, etc. get their money later, if not never.
The reason why insurance of all kinds is so high is because of this unending battle between insurance companies and trial lawyers. And you would think that insurance companies would be your friends in this type of situation, but they aren't. The more letigious society is, the more insurance you need. The more your insurance costs, the more money the insurance company makes with their margins.
I want to illustrate how bad this problem has become. Lookup "tobacco settlement lawyers fees" and see the billions that they collected. Also keep in mind the trial lawyers represent THE largets lobbying group in Washington, and not to spark a party line issue here, but the majority of their money goes to Democrat candidates. This is from triallawyersinc.com :
Anytime that someone gets a retarded amount of money from some EVIL corporation out there, society on a whole is raped of the value of a hard-earned dollar because someone got something for virtually nothing. That means those who are producing carry the weight of that injust money redistribution on our collective shoulders. My big problem with trial lawyers is that they don't make life one bit better for anyone. When I program, I feel like I'm saving people some time and making life a little better for everyone. Trial lawyers do nothing but obstruct the progress of those that try to make life better. I think of them as financial and quality-of-life terrorists.
This "something for nothing is harmful" principle can be applied to every societal problem: welfare, prescription drugs, government health care, government housing, etc..
I urge you to all not celebrate those who get something for nothing. It is not a victory for the common man. It is just more burden for the common man to bear.
Re:Score one for the trial lawyers, not the consum (Score:2)
Quit frankly, there needs to be a cap on what a trial lawyer can make.
Re:Score one for the trial lawyers, not the consum (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a great idea: let's kill all the lawyers! Then, when your boss fires you because he doesn't like your hair, you can go suck your thumb. When your deadbeat son ge
"Score 1 for the consumer"; Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
Be legal if possible, but if not, then be illegal as hell. Make a ton of money and try not to be caught. If you are caught, then hold it off for as long as possible. The interest alone more than covered all of this. Sad, but true.
I didn't sign up. (Score:3, Insightful)
you poor sap... (Score:2, Interesting)
sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Your rights ONLINE? (Score:2, Insightful)
A payment as restitution for price fixing by the RIAA is undoubtedly significant to the Slashdot audience, but it doesn't have much to do with one's rights online.
It's "customer". (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses have customers upon which the businesses depend. Businesses have no inherent right to people's money, they have to earn it.
The word "consumer" makes it appear that the customer is actually dependent on the business, which is absolutely not the case. Car engines consume gasoline because they have to, a person buys a Toyota because they want to.
It's the principle of free will in a free market.
Re:Jesus (Score:2)
Re:Jesus (Score:3, Informative)
True. But this doesn't involve "how much people will pay", it involves fraud by way of screwing with the "Minimum Advertized Price".
If the music industry sold their CDs to retail outlets for $30, and the stores then sold for $50, that alone would not have caused the RIAA to lose this case. They lost because they played pricing games, which violate the Sherman antitrust act.
Think what you will, but they cheat
Re:Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like it, why not talk to your representative and/or senator?
Re:Jesus (Score:2)
It's one thing for a company to say "Hey, let's charge more for our product... that way, we'll make more money!"
But it's illegal for an organization that comprises most of an industry to *all* decide together that they're going to fix their prices.
That's all there is to it. What they did was illegal.
Re:Is anyone else insulted by this?` (Score:2)
Re:Is anyone else insulted by this?` (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a point.
One of the things I regret is taking the $13 settlement check. Because by doing so I relinquished all my rights to sue concerning this matter.
I was recently thinking that it would be an interesting project to get a group of friends together and sue them over the same issue, as much of the legal groundwork has already been done by these lawyers.
Not having received the check, I was tempted to send them a letter stating the fact that they have not settled with me and remove myself off the l