Full Version: RIAA slapped with class action lawsuit
If the RIAA is allowed to keep going with those practices, I wonder if we can keep referring to the US as the "land of the free". The involvement of the RIAA and the movie industry in the US government and legal system is undermining the "free" part.
QUOTE(Nikaki @ Aug 30 2007, 21:10) 
If the RIAA is allowed to keep going with those practices, I wonder if we can keep referring to the US as the "land of the free". The involvement of the RIAA and the movie industry in the US government and legal system is undermining the "free" part.
Although I find the RIAA's Draconian tactics abhorrent, I'm a bit more worried about the Patriot Act when it comes to lost freedom. In a country controlled by fear, people are willing to trade away their privacy for the illusion of security.
On RIAA it proudly says,
"RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."
And here is a statement from its European counterpart, IFPI;
“We have always made it clear we are reluctant litigators. We do everything possible to persuade people not to leave themselves exposed to litigation. We educate, we warn, we even try and settle before a case gets to court. We derive no great satisfaction from this but hope it will prove a deterrent to others. Our message is: we don't want to litigate - don't leave yourself exposed to litigation.”
Now look at this case;
"A federal Jury in Minnesota, USA, ordered Jammie Thomas to pay $222,000 for copyright infringement on Thursday, 4th October. She had used Kazaa to offer up 1,700 songs. Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was wilful and awarded damages of $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that were specifically examined as part of the case. Six music labels brought the case - Arista Records, Capitol Records, Interscope Records, Sony BMG, UMG Recordings and Warner Bros. Records."
Curiously, RIAA only sought damages for 24 songs out of 1,700 uploaded. But RIAA claim they are responsible for 90% of legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the US. Doubtful, if the remaining 1,700 - 24 = 1,676 are not sold in one way or another. So, the question begs, is RIAA truly responsible for 90% of recorded sound sold in the US? Why contest only 24 out of the 1,700 songs? The remaining 1,676 are not sold by RIAA? If that is the case, can they be sued for false advertising?
When one buys a RIAA "sanctioned" material, it has the statement, "no lending, no public playing, no bla bla bla and so on." In the old days before the advent of file sharing, we use to lend among friends our catalogs of recorded material. I can't recall a case was brought before the court where a consumer was caught sharing recorded material with a sibling living in the next city. What about libraries? Don't they also lend recorded material to just about anybody who holds a library card? Is there some kind of special arrangement between public libraries and RIAA? Should we also look at public radio stations that air entire songs without any interruptions from the DJ. How is it that no DJ is ever sued?
It is quite obvious that file sharing have hurt their profits and they now have to play bully or else sink into oblivion. Is that so bad? Will artistes be deprived of a means of selling their songs if all the big record companies folded? I think not, we are seeing new artistes who have bypassed RIAA and have decided to publish their own material through their own website. That is good for them because they cut off the middle man, the RIAA, that takes a huge chunk out of the proceeds and leaving crumbs for the artistes. But what about the marketing prowess of the big record companies? Don't need that really. If the song is good, word will get around. Take for example, Norah Jones. The record company did not promote her in a big way. Her songs were discovered by listeners, not through aggressive marketing. We consumers need to make a point to RIAA that the digital age has made their relevance obsolete. The sooner they go the better.
If the RIAA are so keen to sue their consumers then, consumers and especially consumer associations should bring the RIAA to task. How much is a good CDR? And compare that with the cost of recorded material on a disc. Is the right to that recorded material worth 10 times the material cost? Are consumers being overcharged? How does RIAA justify the run away profits of large record companies? If the cost of recorded material were brought down to more reasonable levels, won't it be better for the music industry? Consumers will have less incentive to pirate these material. Even if they do download it from somewhere without paying for it, they would eventually buy an original or pay for it because they appreciate the music and feel that the artiste should be compensated. That would bring to practice of pay if you like it, don't pay if you don't. Satisfaction guaranteed. And this is good because some music takes time to be appreciated. Consumers should not be limited to just one hearing for evaluation. I am sure artistes would like that too. Just imagine this, a consumer leaves a comment on an artistes site, "Your song is so great that I have decided to paypal you double the asking price."
Just my two cents.
"RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."
And here is a statement from its European counterpart, IFPI;
“We have always made it clear we are reluctant litigators. We do everything possible to persuade people not to leave themselves exposed to litigation. We educate, we warn, we even try and settle before a case gets to court. We derive no great satisfaction from this but hope it will prove a deterrent to others. Our message is: we don't want to litigate - don't leave yourself exposed to litigation.”
Now look at this case;
"A federal Jury in Minnesota, USA, ordered Jammie Thomas to pay $222,000 for copyright infringement on Thursday, 4th October. She had used Kazaa to offer up 1,700 songs. Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was wilful and awarded damages of $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that were specifically examined as part of the case. Six music labels brought the case - Arista Records, Capitol Records, Interscope Records, Sony BMG, UMG Recordings and Warner Bros. Records."
Curiously, RIAA only sought damages for 24 songs out of 1,700 uploaded. But RIAA claim they are responsible for 90% of legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the US. Doubtful, if the remaining 1,700 - 24 = 1,676 are not sold in one way or another. So, the question begs, is RIAA truly responsible for 90% of recorded sound sold in the US? Why contest only 24 out of the 1,700 songs? The remaining 1,676 are not sold by RIAA? If that is the case, can they be sued for false advertising?
When one buys a RIAA "sanctioned" material, it has the statement, "no lending, no public playing, no bla bla bla and so on." In the old days before the advent of file sharing, we use to lend among friends our catalogs of recorded material. I can't recall a case was brought before the court where a consumer was caught sharing recorded material with a sibling living in the next city. What about libraries? Don't they also lend recorded material to just about anybody who holds a library card? Is there some kind of special arrangement between public libraries and RIAA? Should we also look at public radio stations that air entire songs without any interruptions from the DJ. How is it that no DJ is ever sued?
It is quite obvious that file sharing have hurt their profits and they now have to play bully or else sink into oblivion. Is that so bad? Will artistes be deprived of a means of selling their songs if all the big record companies folded? I think not, we are seeing new artistes who have bypassed RIAA and have decided to publish their own material through their own website. That is good for them because they cut off the middle man, the RIAA, that takes a huge chunk out of the proceeds and leaving crumbs for the artistes. But what about the marketing prowess of the big record companies? Don't need that really. If the song is good, word will get around. Take for example, Norah Jones. The record company did not promote her in a big way. Her songs were discovered by listeners, not through aggressive marketing. We consumers need to make a point to RIAA that the digital age has made their relevance obsolete. The sooner they go the better.
If the RIAA are so keen to sue their consumers then, consumers and especially consumer associations should bring the RIAA to task. How much is a good CDR? And compare that with the cost of recorded material on a disc. Is the right to that recorded material worth 10 times the material cost? Are consumers being overcharged? How does RIAA justify the run away profits of large record companies? If the cost of recorded material were brought down to more reasonable levels, won't it be better for the music industry? Consumers will have less incentive to pirate these material. Even if they do download it from somewhere without paying for it, they would eventually buy an original or pay for it because they appreciate the music and feel that the artiste should be compensated. That would bring to practice of pay if you like it, don't pay if you don't. Satisfaction guaranteed. And this is good because some music takes time to be appreciated. Consumers should not be limited to just one hearing for evaluation. I am sure artistes would like that too. Just imagine this, a consumer leaves a comment on an artistes site, "Your song is so great that I have decided to paypal you double the asking price."
Just my two cents.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.