Slashdot Log In
One Man's Check From The RIAA
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Feb 21, 2004 03:18 PM
from the too-little-too-late-too-bad dept.
from the too-little-too-late-too-bad dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Ya know... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://homepage.mac.com/inertia186/iblog/ | Last Journal: Monday February 09 2004, @08:06PM)
Re:Ya know... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.slashdot.org/~lukewarmfusion/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 02 2005, @02:49PM)
Sticking it to the RIAA (-$13.86)
Getting a Slashdot-induced bandwidth bill of $3,000: Priceless.
Way to go.
Re:Ya know... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.linear.cc/)
Getting a Slashdot-induced bandwidth bill of $3,000: $3000
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:4, Insightful)
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)
(http://www.floriopics.com/)
Re:Super! (Score:5, Insightful)
Um (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.icarusindie.com/)
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:Super! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Super! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.symas.com/ | Last Journal: Monday April 09 2007, @06:48PM)
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]
No admision of guilt (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.preinheimer.com/ | Last Journal: Friday August 22 2003, @10:32AM)
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?
Sadly (Score:5, Funny)
Nice! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 26 2006, @05:27PM)
Oh, wait...
A Modest Proposal. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://allstarpowerup.com/)
$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.
Now Go Out... (Score:5, Insightful)
wow (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://i.love.spam.mail.com/)
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)
(http://allstarpowerup.com/)
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!
Re:Score 1 for the consumer! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://anti-slash.org/)
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'm gonna buy.... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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)
(Last Journal: Tuesday April 08 2003, @10:19PM)
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)
(http://www.cafeleprick.com/)
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)
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.
Jesus (Score:1, Interesting)
(http://apocalyptech.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 19 2004, @03:06PM)
Re:Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.netspace.org/~bperkins)
If you don't like it, why not talk to your representative and/or senator?
Seriously, what a waste! (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.edgiardina.com/)
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?'
oh, no, not you too (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 28 2002, @09:21AM)
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.
Illegal copying (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday July 28 2004, @09:51AM)
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.
"Score 1 for the consumer"; Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
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)
You Shoulda Opted Out (Score:1)
(http://www.rishichopra.org/)
Is anyone else insulted by this?` (Score:1)
(http://www.evilgenius.net/nancy)
-1 troll again (Score:1)
(http://popcornwithaspoon.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday October 23 2004, @05:40AM)
Sorry, I have only read a few replies. This topic simply annoys me to no end.
Pretty much ever CD I have purchased, I would have bought regardless of the price (within reason). To me, within reason is $10 - $20 U.S. dollars. I see it as basic econ (although, it is far from that, but I digress). I wouldn't buy a CD from a band if it cost $5 if I didn't like the band. But I would pay $20 for a cd from a band I liked. A music CD is a luxury! No one is going hungry because of the price of a song. For the music I like, I will pay pretty much anything. Oddly, my favorite band it the Grateful Dead. TONS of free music, yet I own most of the groups CDs that were released on the record label. I didn't buy the CDs because I felt obligated, but simply because I like the effen pictures.
To me, this entire music arguement is a bunch of tight ass white boys whining about nothing. If you like the music, you will buy it as long as the price is reasonable. What is reasonable varies from person to person, but you are talking about a piece of insignificant "sheet". A dollar or two or three really doesn't matter. You do NOT need to own a CD in order to stay alive. A couple of bucks is truly meaningless in the realm of music.
sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Disk v. Disc? (Score:1)
Anyone care to clarify?
Your rights ONLINE? (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.linux.com/)
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.
$13.86 Ohhhh (Score:2)
(http://www.pctools.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 09 2005, @06:08PM)
If it was determi