Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   RIAA spends thousands to obtain $300 judgement   ( arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

15530 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jul 2007 at 11:25 AM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-07-17 04:36:51 AM  
Why do they bother?
 
2007-07-17 04:58:58 AM  
I'd say the key thing here is they got her to agree to a judgement, so they've got something to cite in future cases.
 
2007-07-17 05:40:24 AM  
They kept referring to someone else as the infringer. Why did they go after her? Would a person in state housing have her own ISP account and computer? If so, that sounds like abuse of the welfare system and she got what she deserved. If not, how could they possibly try to pin it on her?
 
2007-07-17 07:16:17 AM  
from what I read from other articles on this subject, after she offered the $300, if they continued the case and lost/obtained $300 or less in judgement, they would be responsible for all of the attorney's fees for her.

Offer em a buck, and then get a great lawyer to tear them a new arsehole.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2007-07-17 08:44:21 AM  
Doesn't sound dumb to me. They aren't out to make a profit on any individual case. The settlement is consistent with their primary goals: (1) to get a large number of payments to convince people that the odds of getting away with it are poor, (2) to ensure that the financial impact to the defendant is severe enough to be a deterrent. Hiring a lawyer to get a good deal is still expensive -- you pay one lawyer instead of another. Only by hiring a lawyer and winning outright do you come close to breaking even. Most of the people sued are not likely to win because they did just what they are accused of doing. Many of the rest are at least complicit and are going to be rightfully afraid to face a trial.
 
2007-07-17 09:24:42 AM  
tbyte: Would a person in state housing have her own ISP account and computer? If so, that sounds like abuse of the welfare system

So - does that mean she shouldn't have a telephone either? How bout a car, or a fridge? Is she allowed to own a television?
 
2007-07-17 09:27:13 AM  
ZAZ: Many of the rest are at least complicit dead, senile, or deaf and are going to be rightfully afraid to face a trial.
 
2007-07-17 09:46:42 AM  
1. Identify potential customers who enjoy music in a different format.

2. Offer music in said format. Prosecute them.

3. Profit
 
2007-07-17 09:54:40 AM  
They're setting precedent. Precedent that you commoners are owned by your masters.
 
2007-07-17 09:57:29 AM  
KittySoft: Why do they bother?

They need to get the money for coke and hookers somewhere, you know.
 
2007-07-17 10:04:22 AM  
I really don't mean this as a political jab per se, but RIAA appears to be following Cheney's 1% doctrine: your response is all that matters. They'll spend the buck if it means they put the scare in us.
 
2007-07-17 11:29:38 AM  
Can we get the RIAA added to the official list of terrorist organizations?
 
2007-07-17 11:34:35 AM  
KittySoft: Why do they bother?

Why does anyone soulless and evil do what they do?
 
2007-07-17 11:35:25 AM  
de·ter·rent /dɪˈtɜrənt, -ˈtʌr-, -ˈtɛr-/

-adjective 1. serving or tending to deter.
-noun 2. something that deters: a deterrent to crime.
 
2007-07-17 11:35:47 AM  
TFA says they got a judgment. They also got a judgement? Well, there you go.
 
2007-07-17 11:39:37 AM  
I'm just glad that Judges finally are starting to figure out that the RIAA has no basis for its claims. The DMCA doesn't cover this; the assorted cable laws don't cover it. Eventually defendants will start counter-claiming for trespass.
 
2007-07-17 11:40:50 AM  
$750/song?

www.marcm.net

I assuming some of this money would go to the bands? yeah didn't think so.
 
2007-07-17 11:42:59 AM  
tbyte:

Would a person in state housing have her own ISP account and computer? If so, that sounds like abuse of the welfare system and she got what she deserved.


You have no clue how welfare works, do you?
 
2007-07-17 11:44:27 AM  
So would this case actually count as a precedent though? I'm obviously skimming over something in the article, but I can't figure out if this went to court and a judge mandated this payout, or if it was a figure she ended up settling with them before a final court decision.

Because if the courts decided that she was liable, then this deserves a scary tag.
 
2007-07-17 11:46:15 AM  
I still don't understand how they get the value of 750$ per song. If you steal a cd at the record store its about 1.33 per song. So how the hell is it $750 per song?

Can't someone subpoena them to reveal how they got that value?
 
2007-07-17 11:46:18 AM  
A functional business plan was never a core competancy for the RIAA.

They were going to try and make it up in volume, but their stereo only goes to 10.
 
2007-07-17 11:46:36 AM  
non-story.
Cant do the time (or pay the fine), don't do the crime.
 
2007-07-17 11:47:43 AM  
While I feel this is good news overall, there is even better news that hasn't been posted yet on fark:

The RIAA has been ordered to reimburse lawyers fees to the tune of $68,685.23.


This needs to happen more often. These blanket, John Doe lawsuits that contain no evidence, but only continue because of mafia like scare tactics and extortion need to end. The accused need to fight back, as this person has. You can win, and this proves it.
 
2007-07-17 11:48:00 AM  
What if the buggy whip industry had had some way they could sue Ford?
 
2007-07-17 11:48:08 AM  
And they wonder why people steal music. Maybe they're tired of paying inflated prices because so much of the money goes to BS like this.

/Off to steal more music
//Not that I need more, just to spite the RIAA
///Keep up the douchebaggery RIAA, I'll keep not paying for music
 
2007-07-17 11:48:35 AM  
Does this mean they will have to wait a few more weeks to install the gold plated shark tank bar?
 
2007-07-17 11:50:16 AM  
Mr. Scorpion: And they wonder why people steal music infringe copyright. Maybe they're tired of paying inflated prices because so much of the money goes to BS like this.

/Off to steal more music infringe copyright
//Not that I need more, just to spite the RIAA
///Keep up the douchebaggery RIAA, I'll keep not paying for music


Pedantry ftw
 
2007-07-17 11:53:42 AM  
MastaBrembo: $750/song?

I assuming some of this money would go to the bands? yeah didn't think so.


Stop making sense.
 
2007-07-17 11:57:17 AM  
Also, the people behind the RIAA need to start being held accountable for these things. The RIAA exists so that they can do all the shadowy bullshiat that makes people hate them, meanwhile the labels and distributors sponsoring them stay out of the media.

One thing to remember is that while the guys that head up the RIAA are heartless soulless bastards, it's their job to be heartless soulless bastards and they are being employed by the labels. By only directing heat towards the RIAA, things are going just like they want. All the heat on them and not on their clients.
 
2007-07-17 11:58:16 AM  
mediaho: They're setting precedent. Precedent that you commoners are owned by your masters.

I would like to thank the whiny biatches of metal - Metallica - for helping to make this dream a reality
 
2007-07-17 12:00:28 PM  
It's the principality!

If only i could remember where that's from.
 
2007-07-17 12:01:42 PM  
LizKing531: mediaho: They're setting precedent. Precedent that you commoners are owned by your masters.

I would like to thank the whiny biatches of metal - Metallica - for helping to make this dream a reality


tbn0.google.com
 
2007-07-17 12:04:38 PM  
Tell me again why downloading a song is illegal and me dubbing my buddy's copy of Thriller on casette back in the 80's was ok? Why can I use my VCR or DVR to record an episode of Scrubs to keep and watch whenever I want but I can't go to youtube and see it cause of the copyright?

RIAA, DIAF
 
2007-07-17 12:04:41 PM  
If their software is so good, why don't they bill first offense infringers $1 per song, that way they get more than they would have and the infringer pays what they would have. After that they can slap them with ridiculous fines, but only an idiot would continue to illegally download after getting caught once, and they deserve to get raped by the RIAA.
 
2007-07-17 12:05:07 PM  
http://www.supportthemusic.com (new window)

Its time to be these asshats out of business!!!!
 
2007-07-17 12:05:28 PM  
Music "rights" are artificially valued. The value of art includes rarity and music can't be rare or scarce, per se. The tapes of the first Abbey Road sessions are rare. "Love Me Do" isn't. I could sing the whole thing right now. Gratis.

Trying to put artificial limits on supply as a way to increase price is nothing new but it is a music business tactic and not at all guided by the Invisible Hand because music can't be logically traded in a free market.

There was a time when no one had the ability to "record" anything except in their memory, their very brains. Then you could consider a "record" a commodity. Not the "recording" but the actual plastic disk. Now, with the advent of the tape recorder and its progeny the value of a plastic disk with music on it has been greatly diminished.

And the RIAA and your Federal government are actively screwing Adam Smith in the keister.
 
2007-07-17 12:07:11 PM  
I just called to say....
Fark the R I A Ayyyyiiiiiie!


/Suck it suits.
//slashies not pirated.
 
2007-07-17 12:10:09 PM  
The music industry is a house of cards. They have held on to 90% of the profit since the beginning. They create nothing and they know it. They fought the player piano,cassette tape recorder, DAT and CD-R. The movie industry at least has an argument as they do actually create something.
 
2007-07-17 12:15:36 PM  
imgred.com

/proposed logo.
 
2007-07-17 12:16:19 PM  
Buy indie, steal RIAA.
 
2007-07-17 12:19:14 PM  
ZAZ:: to get a large number of payments to convince people that the odds of getting away with it are poor

LMAO!

ZAZ, I am not laughing at you as I get what you are saying, but they'd have to convict certain individuals 50,000 separate times just to get odds anywhere close to quantifiable.
 
2007-07-17 12:19:17 PM  
This is the case.

Link (new window)

On page 3 the defendant filed a motion to be reimbursed for 114k in attorney fees. The RIAA lawyers replied that the amount was unreasonable. haha
 
2007-07-17 12:19:47 PM  
The movie industry at least has an argument as they do actually create something.

The movie industry has a better way to keep their product "scarce". It's called a movie theater.

Ever notice a Movie costs millions, takes years, perhaps and you can get a widescreen HD version of it for $10 (eventually). But a "White Stripes" CD that was cut in a week for $100k is $18 forever. WTF?
 
2007-07-17 12:22:08 PM  
www.supportthemusic.com (new window)
 
2007-07-17 12:22:15 PM  
Copying music = stealing music? Okay, I'm off to go copy some food from the store, and then I think I'll copy a car so I can get away.

/Grand Duplication Auto
 
2007-07-17 12:27:32 PM  
danlpoon: The movie industry at least has an argument as they do actually create something.

The movie industry has a better way to keep their product "scarce". It's called a movie theater.

Ever notice a Movie costs millions, takes years, perhaps and you can get a widescreen HD version of it for $10 (eventually). But a "White Stripes" CD that was cut in a week for $100k is $18 forever. WTF?



Don't forget that the 100k to record the album comes out the band's pocket. Any videos made are also financed by the artist.
 
2007-07-17 12:28:45 PM  
Yes matrixxx1, you have an anti-RIAA website, you've promoted yourself twice now. Saw it the first time. Nice Google Ads.
 
2007-07-17 12:28:57 PM  
Mr. Scorpion: And they wonder why people steal music. Maybe they're tired of paying inflated prices because so much of the money goes to BS like this.

/Off to steal more music
//Not that I need more, just to spite the RIAA
///Keep up the douchebaggery RIAA, I'll keep not paying for music


Good point. Until the RIAA sued Napster, people were paying for their P2P downloads.
 
2007-07-17 12:29:22 PM  
Tell me again why downloading a song is illegal and me dubbing my buddy's copy of Thriller on casette back in the 80's was ok? Why can I use my VCR or DVR to record an episode of Scrubs to keep and watch whenever I want but I can't go to youtube and see it cause of the copyright?

If they had a means to watch over turntables and cassette decks as readily as they now can on the internet, then that would be a reality too. The warnings were printed right on the labels. It was just darned impossible to catch the vast majority of people making physical copies.

Heck, even recordings from 100 years ago had stern anti-copying threats on them, if you can imagine. [goes to basement and returns with a specimen]. I've got a record right here from 1906 that says this on the reverse side (back before they made 2-sided records):

"...any sale or use of this record in violation of any of these conditions will be considered as an infringement of our U.S. patents covering the same, and all parties so selling or using this record, or any copy thereof, contrary to the terms of this license, will be treated as infringers of the said patents, and will render themselves liable to suit...Victor Talking Machine CO...December 1, 1905"

It's also interesting that selling the record for less than 60 cents was a violation of that license! That would be, what?, $30 inflation-adjusted for one song featuring a German guy yodeling to "Oh where, oh where has my little dog gone?"

/I've violated their license, btw. The scratchy copy of the recording is now in MP3 form on my computer!
 
2007-07-17 12:30:28 PM  
So the first person they went after was a 12 or 13 year old girl. They threatened a bunch of college students and their Universities (mine gave the RIAA the finger). Now they're hounding after people on gov't assistance? Could any of these people afford to pay for the music in the first place? Most likely no so what do they think they'll get by suing them? $300 doesn't even begin to pay their legal fees so WTF is the point?

/You can get blood from a stone.
//unless it's one of those spiffy bleeding stones
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report