Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Government Media The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

Setback For RIAA In Sweeping Lawsuits 45

Posted by timothy from the automation-will-do-wonders dept.
pvt_medic writes "In a set back for the RIAA, last Friday a judge ruled that they have to file lawsuits individually. The judge's decision was that for each John Doe that the RIAA wanted identified they would have to file an individual lawsuit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Setback For RIAA In Sweeping Lawsuits More

Setback For RIAA In Sweeping Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • Since SCO has publicly stated they plan to follow RIAA's examples, this is a good sign that SCO won't be able to blanket the courts with thousands of lawsuits.

  • This is SO unfair! (Score:4, Funny)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @08:57PM (#8505095) Journal
    "In a set back for the RIAA, last Friday a judge ruled that they have to file lawsuits individually. The judge's decision was that for each John Doe that the RIAA wanted identified they would have to file an individual lawsuit." [According to the article, filing fees, at $130 per case, could amount to over $30,000.]

    Overheard in the RIAA boardroom:
    But, but,....


    When Hilary was running things here, we spent so much buying that legislation, I don't know if we can afford $30,000 -- and for crap like due process and the rule of law!

    Let's see, to get back the $30,000 in filing fees, we'll have win suits against... 10 more twelve year-olds!
    • "The music trade group must pay court fees for each of these cases. Filing each lawsuit will cost $150 in court fees, for a total of over $30,000, according to the EFF."

      This doesn't even count the additional legal fees and man-hours involved in filing each individual case separately. Plus the additional costs for filing subpeonas to the individual ISPs, the costs to actually deliver the charges to the alleged violators, and so on. Hopefully, these costs will just continue to escalate and east away at the

  • I feel so sorry for the RIAA... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @09:03PM (#8505147)
    ... out of sympathy, I promise to only download one file at a time.

  • Abolish the copyright laws for digital media (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @10:12PM (#8505873)
    It's important that we all do our part to ensure the defeat of the RIAA and the old Luddite network distribution system of manual labor.

    I encourage everyone to use a P2P network like gnutelliums [gnutelliums.com] to share and distribute as much music and video as you can. If we all saturate the Internet with everything we have, the RIAA will eventually realize the futility of their ways and give up.

    Good artists will always get paid as society will always find a way to fund what it likes. The best musicians always performed for the love of medium, not for the money. Mozart, Charlie Parker, The Beatles, etc. would have had no problem making money on today's Internet. It's the mediocre artists who rely on hype and false advertising that keep the current system alive. The best musicians will always be recorded and compensated.

    • Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:10AM (#8507959)

      "The best musicians always performed for the love of medium, not for the money."

      Dangerous generalization. Many of the greats of the last millennium -- your Mozart example included -- were indeed chasing money.

      "It's the mediocre artists who rely on hype and false advertising that keep the current system alive."

      Another dangerous generalization. There are plenty of excellent artists who rely on record sales to pay their mortgages and feed their families. There's no correlation between musical talent and being a capitalist.

      "The best musicians will always be recorded and compensated."

      I am glad to see that you are in favor of compensating musicians. Why not let that start with you? I think that respect for others' wishes is an equally good moral base -- that is, if an artist of any sort invites you to download their music or their book or their artwork for free, then, by all means, go for it. But if they insist on being paid for their efforts, respect their wishes. In other words, treat them as you would like to be treated.

      "I encourage everyone to use a P2P network like gnutelliums to share and distribute as much music and video as you can."

      In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!". It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something. Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.

      • Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ReaperOfSouls ( 523060 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @05:25AM (#8508160) Homepage
        In general -- and this is not directed expressly at you -- there's a lot of sentiment amongst Slashdotters of the form "Down with greedy artists! I want to be able to download everything for free!".

        To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists. I'll make an exception for Metallica, they have no excuse, since they became popular through bootleg recordings. My issue in perticular is with the companies that back the RIAA. The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy. The fact that they have been sued and found guilty twice of price fixing wrt CDs, signals that they are greedy.

        My largest issue with the record companies is their swarminess to try to avoid bad press by hiding behind the RIAA. Basically saying hey its not us that are suing you its that rabid dog RIAA.

        It seems like it's only greed when it's the other guy who wants something.

        Or when its price gouging. Tell me seriously why again is a CD more costly then a cassette, even on disks with no additional features. Lets be honest, the Record industry has been duping customers for years. There is nothing like purchasing a CD to find one or two decent songs on it. Napster/Kaaza/etc. showed clearly that there was a market for distributing single songs at a reasonable price, even if that reasonable price was free. iTunes clearly showed that the price point was higher then zero.

        Making a living as an artist by selling one's recordings is regarded as a sign of greed and/or a lack of talent, while using a P2P network to avoid paying for music is somehow not greed, and instead some sort of social protest.

        I have no problem feeding artists...Its the hundreds of middle men around them that I have a problem with. Note I don't mean the folks that actually contribute to the actual music.

        • "To qoute you, "Dangerous generalization". The issue isn't that most slashdotters have problems with greedy artists."

          Agreed 100%. I wrote "many." I've seen the "down with greedy artists, but give me all the free music I can download" sentiment quite a bit around here. I don't think it's the majority opinion, though.

          "The fact that a given "new" artist, can sell 4-5 million copies of their album and they own money to the record company should be a clear signal that they are greedy."

          Wow, if that's

          • As an aside, music prices have been relatively flat over the past 40 years; in fact, they're going down. The average price of a new CD is down to $13.50 in the US. Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99. That'd be $18.00 in today's economy.

            I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99.

            This number works out perfectly with your inflation curve.

            • "I don't know where you buy cd's, but the average, admitted, open, regular price of CD's in the United States is 17.99 - 18.99."

              The $13.50 average I mentioned (it's actually $13.42; I rounded up) is from NPD Musicwatch [npd.com], an analyist firm that covers the music industry, tracking sales and the like. It's down from last year's average price.

              Note that's the average price for new releases. YMMV. CDs certainly may be $17.99 or $18.99 in your area or at the retailers near you, and I highly value your anecd

            • Back when I first started buying LPs in the early 1980's, a good price was $9.99.


              According to the RIAA, that is impossible. The list price of LPs never crossed the $9 until 1994, according to them.

          • Re:Abolish the copyright laws for digital media (Score:5, Interesting)

            by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:41PM (#8513183) Homepage
            I question why it is you think its acceptable to pay what you do for a cd, but also acceptable to pay the same amount or marginally more for a film on DVD.

            The movie comes loaded with extras (typically), and is also 2 hours long, compared to albums, which average 45-50 minutes long.
            Also, whats the production cost on an average movie up to today? I read that Michael Jackson's last album was.... god... I think 7 mill. Most albums cost 10 times less than that to produce.

            Yet Movies, which cost far more, side by side, with the benefits of a cd to a dvd weighed, DVD's are less expensive.

            I just don't get it.

            • "I question why it is you think its acceptable to pay what you do for a cd, but also acceptable to pay the same amount or marginally more for a film on DVD."

              Remember, CDs are priced according to the supply and demand curve. We can discuss all we like why consumers might pay X for one product and Y for another, but it ultimately comes down to what's selling, and the perceived value of the product.

              At any rate, since you asked me directly, I don't mind paying about $12 for a CD because I'll listen to a

                • Remember, CDs are priced according to the supply and demand curve.

                So we are talking about a free market here, where free market-rules apply then?

                That might be.

                Except that distribution is controlled by a semi-monopoly, so there is no real competition.

                And except that when sales drop, it's never ever because the products are shit, but "due to piracy".

                And isn't it simply amazing that the recording industry actually knows how much people would be buying, but aren't?

                As I see things, they prob

                • The issue of exactly how much of an effect piracy has had on the sales slump is a hotly debated one. It's not just the record companies that are screaming "piracy!". Forrester Research [forrester.com], a highly respected analyst firm, states that the amount of the music industry's sales drop due to piracy has been overstated (that should be no surprise to Slashdotters), but also states that the record industry will indeed lose $3 Billion due to piracy over the next few years.

                  "And except that when sales drop, it's nev

      • It's basic human nature to share information. Some even claim it's an innate human right. Artists are under no obligation to perform or record anything. If they don't want their work to be distributed freely on the Internet, they shouldn't record it.

        It's not right for them to shut down Napster just because they couldn't get paid. They are indeed Luddites. And the DMCA is like prohibition, people will share digital media just like they drank beer in the 1920s.

        --
        Those funny plastic disks have to go.

        • Artists are under no obligation to perform or record anything.

          If they do record music, they are under no obligation to give their music away. Do you make the plumber teach you how to fix your sink? Force the mechanic to teach you to repair your own car? Didn't think so.

          Just like how I can see my girlfriend naked, but I don't have to take pictures of her and share them with other guys who want to see.

          And I'm not going to either... So don't ask ;)

      • I just wanted to jump in on this to say I have downloaded music. But I am not a greedy person. When this all started so many years ago (it seems), I downloaded a lot of music from Napster. A lot of people did. That's what made it great. Those were also the days that I bought a lot of music too. I seem to remember enjoying picking up that physical material and feeling like I owned something worth while.

        Now I rarely download music. I have a directory full of MP3s that I burn when I need to. I'm not

  • No Reverse class action? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yahoo . c om> on Monday March 08, 2004 @10:52PM (#8506269) Homepage Journal
    So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around. That's likely a good thing.
    • So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around.

      The "class" in a class action lawsuit is a well-defined and indentified group. IANAL, but if I understand correctly you have to belong to the group in question (e.g., "people who bought stock in XYZ Corp. between June and December 1997") and you have to specifically file to join in the lawsuit.

      • Re:No Reverse class action? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jhylkema ( 545853 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:42AM (#8507430)

        /* DISCLAIMER

        This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you need/want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.

        DISCLAIMER */

        Quoth the poster:

        So class action suits don't work in reverse. A class can sue an entity, but not the other way around.

        Not necessarily. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP 23) [cornell.edu] governs class actions.

        In a nutshell, the prerequisites are:

        (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

        (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

        (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and

        (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

  • Congress may be for sale... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uncoveror ( 570620 ) on Monday March 08, 2004 @11:10PM (#8506427) Homepage
    ...but not the courts. At least not this one. The RIAA are the real criminals here, and the ones who should be sued. I hope that Michele Scimeca, the lady in New Jersey suing them for extortion and racketeering wins. Read more about what's wrong with the recording industry at www.dontbuycds.org [dontbuycds.org]

    • Re:Congress may be for sale... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And it certainly looks like Congress was bought when it comes to the DMCA. According to opensecrets [opensecrets.org] the top contributors in the entertainment industry spent between 20 and 30 million dollars to ensure passage of the DMCA.

      And the politicians in Congress have the audacity to tell us we are breaking the law when they have sold themselves out under nothing short of legalized bribery.

  • Now we just need.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by azuroff ( 318072 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:16AM (#8506919)
    ...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...

    • Re:Now we just need.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ReaperOfSouls ( 523060 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:46PM (#8513234) Homepage
      ...a court to rule that they have to file a separate lawsuit for each and every infringing song...

      I know its a pipe dream, but you might be able to make the legal case that the RIAA has no right to sue due to the fact that they own no copyrights and only the indivigual companies do. That would at least break it down to songs per record company. It would also make it so that the RC would have to come out from hiding behind the RIAA.
      • No, that wouldn't work. In all of the letters sent by the RIAA's lawyers to those being sued, they said something along the lines of, "I affirm under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of $label." You are correct in that the RIAA does not own any copyrights, but they have been authorized to act on behalf of those who do.
        • Like I said it was a pipe dream...:-)

          So who is the plaintif? Is it the RIAA or the record company? If it is the RIAA, they cannot claim damages since as you and I noted they have no intelectual property to misappropiate. Or is the RIAA effectively acting as a law firm in these cases?
  • ...for the illegal price fixing cartel that it is, under the Sherman Antitrust Act (and others) - the courts will be able to get back to more important things - like locking up the rest of the Food Network's goons.

    All kidding aside - I'd like to see someone pin the RIAA as a "state actor" - and make them respect our first and fourteenth amendment rights.

    "Good for you son. If there is one thing America needs, it's more lawyers. "

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close