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!"
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)
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, and soon Roxio Napster 2.0.
The new RIAA attack plan is to offer B2P services. The problem? DRM. If I buy a CD from iTMS, for example, it may be $9.99. I would buy the same CD in store for $14.99. No, I'm NOT paying five bucks for the album art, professionally burned CD, etc. I'm paying for the right to do with it what I want. There's something about having "SOMETHING" in your hands. They can't take that away from you, like they can with digital music.
P2P for me is a way of sampling music before buying the CD. This will never be replaced by a $0.99 deal, since I like to download it, and listen to the song throughout the day. At work I listen to different music than at home. At night, different music from the day. Walking music is different from sittin' or driving music. Rhapsody fails here, so does iTMS... you can only sample certain portions, while in front of your computer. It's not the same.
Why P2P is better than HTTP? It's easier. More people use it, than HTTP was used for MP3 trading. Does it matter? No, B2P will overtake them both. There IS a large number of people who ONLY want digital music, that's why they turn to P2P. These people will turn to B2P once it becomes "mainstream."
For the most part the RIAA doesn't have to do legal battles any more (though it is a nice source of income), they can attack it by offering new online services, just as EVERYONE has been saying for years. Me, I'll stick to brick and mortar, and P2P though.
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: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 buying CDs a long time ago. I didn't stop buying them because of MP3s, I stopped buying them because of their cost, and the fact that most of them suck. I stopped buying LONG before MP3s became mainstream.
Hell, I've bought more CDs in the last few years from bands who I discoverred because of MP3s than I did in the few years before MP3s. The best part: most of the bands are NOT on mainstream labels.
I'm happy. I have a good collection of music, I paid for most of it legitimately, and I'm not supporting the RIAA. Too bad everybody else can't be in the same position.
Re:How much for JUST the rights to listen? (Score:1, Interesting)
For example, each household on a block could buy one CD each, and make the deal that each day, you give the CD you have to your right neighbor (and receive one from your left neighbor). Assuming 50 households on the block, you get to listen to 50 CDs over 50 days for the price of one. Legally.
Jesus (Score:1, Interesting)
"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.
you poor sap... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I figure we're even (Score:2, Interesting)
The RIAA can shove their check up their
sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Although the total amount is non-trivial, by the time it's parceled out, it becomes a slap on the wrist for the respondents. It doesn't do damage to the cause against the RIAA to point out that these companies still wield a huge advantage, regardless of this victory. It *definitely* doesn't hurt the cause to point out that the settlement hasn't particularly injured them; many companies go for the beleaguered "oh, no, now we'll not be as economically *viable* after these evil anti-capitalists have taken advantage of us through the courts!" tactic after something like this.
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 music folks long ago worked out that they sold more albums if they got airplay).
I used to work in a record store, where we played music non-stop all day. Every time we put on a CD, at least one person asked what it was and then went to find it. This is why one of the guys from Capitol who came in now and then to sell off promo discs once brought us t-shirts that said "If you play them, they will sell" (Yes, it was the "Field of Dreams" era of sloganizing).
But there are cases where you can't play music for a large audience without special permission. I'm not sure what the limitations are, though.
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: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.
Wait wait I think I can find more!
racketeer n.
A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities.
OOh I can squeeze another one out!
entrap v.
2) b. To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
Whew I'm glad we got THAT out of the way!