if only the RIAA and its members focused its resources on innovation rather than litigation over the past 10 years, the industry would be in much better shape. The RIAA doesn't have the right to charge anything on top of the profits it already reaps from the artists and fans. Until its members wake up, artists will continue to ditch major labels and embrace modern day distribution and publishing conventions.
Kevin
· 4 months ago
I seriously don't understand why the RIAA goes after individuals for exorbitant amounts of money, citing that 'stealing' the song resulted in losses that would have added up to millions of dollars.
If anything, the open proliferation of music only helps to make people more aware of a musician's quality, resulting in better publicity and hey, maybe even a wider turnout at concerts, where it's actually about the music and not just selling people round plastic discs or M4A files with crippled abilities.
It's clear that the record labels only want to make money, and seeing as how their constant decisions to deal out lose-lose situations to anyone wanting to obtain music legally makes the whole pirating process seem so much more appealing in terms of convenience and speed, it's no wonder they sue random, hapless individuals for 6-digit figures to make up for all the money they aren't getting, and in my opinion, don't deserve.
Long story short: fuck the RIAA.
Wayne Smallman
· 4 months ago
Yes, the RIAA are idiots, but Tenenbaum and his legal team acted even more idiotically, most probably aggravating the situation further.
I find my sympathy is some what stretched...
Eo Nomine
· 4 months ago
"Since Tenenbaum had already admitted to infringement, the jury’s instructions from the judge were to choose an amount between $750 and $30,000 per song."
Not quite true. The jury had two things to decide, namely (a) whether Tenenbaum's infringement had been willful, and (b) the damages. If the infringement was determined not to be willful, then the range of possible damages per infringing work was $750 to $30,000. However, if the jury determined that the infringement was willful, then the range increased to between $750 and $150,000 per infringing work.
The jury determined that Tenebaum's infringement was willful, and consequently they had to choose an amount between $750 and $150,000 per song, not between $750 and $30,000 as you suggest.
mashable
· 4 months ago
Thx, corrected.
journik
· 4 months ago
I bow down at the altar of the RIAA in thanks that it condescends upon us puny consumers to grant such a generous 99cent dl from iTunes. Long live RIAA, Om, shanti, shanti, hari, hari, hari...
jasonn
· 4 months ago
Art industry people are masters of government and societal manipulation. Too bad they're not creative about delivering products people want to buy. There is no industry that could demand this kind of multiple for punitive damages.
MT
· 4 months ago
If the RIAA was hoping to discourage illegal downloading, I think they might have succeeded. The Web 2.0 crowd may soon have to face reality: stealing copyrighted material is illegal, it does not benefit musicians, and there may be an enormous price to pay if you get caught.
Really?
· 4 months ago
Lol, discourage illegal downloading? HA HA HA H ROFL^99999
Take a look at compete.com and enter a few "illegal" music download sites. Traffic just keeps growing.
Once music is digital, it's free, no matter how you look at it. Instead they should use the fact that most people get music for free and figure out an advertisement model.
It works for TV shows, why not for music?
Until then FUCK THE RIAA
Andrew_Kuz
· 4 months ago
That is just absolutely absurd. Its not like those companies really need that money, they just want to use this kid as an "example." Over $22,000 in damages per song is just insane, unless this kid was making illegal copies and selling each one for a grand each...
Terry
· 4 months ago
I don't know where you are getting this 30 song count. Joel Tenenbaum admitted on the news that he had shared 800 songs by the time he was first contacted by the RIAA. By the time of the trial, he admitted to 2000 songs. Maybe only 30 counts were files but the jury new of the full 2000.
Joris
· 4 months ago
Really this is over the top. I just can't believe anything like this is made possible these days. Artists still earn more then enough to live in excessive wealth while other people have trouble buying food. Lately I've heard about more and more artist who 'detest' the RIAA's approach on these cases. Earlier this year for example, the band Officer Roseland paid downloaders to download their album. (Source: http://realityme.net/2009/02/19/riaa-take-that-...) I've read about artists who support downloaders who are found guilty.
In my opinion, RIAA and other organisations like it should be disbanded ASAP. Or they should change direction and be honest( I know it's Utopia I'm thinking of).
Frank
· 4 months ago
Wow, just wow. This is absurd to the highest level, they usually fail against P2P client software providers so they use a man as an example. Most of the people a man between 18-30 knows has at least 200 songs downloaded from the net (''illegally''). This is so sad, I'd spend my entire life having LEGAL revenge somehow against every individual involved in this case from the RIAA (private investigator + adultery = revenge).
I'm try to find the list of songs he downloaded and download them myself. Illegal downloads do the following: 1) get third parties acquainted with music they would otherwise never heard before (leading to sales) 2) further promote songs by repetition they might have already heard of. 3) lead to an eventual sale of an album that the user might not have otherwise wanted. Yes I've heard the other side of claims, but it's mostly BS.
I have bought so many albums thanks to one little illegal download. They just want us to buy what they want us to hear. Don't even get me started with Metallica, I love their music, and I've never bought any of their music since the Napster incident, those greedy fools.
semi
· 4 months ago
To Pete:
Don't be an idiot. He got a huge judgement against him because he made the songs available for distribution by keeping them in his shared folder. But press like you say he was fined for "downloading." That is just spin by the defense lawyer. Why don't you read about the actual case instead giving us knee-jerk reactions with two nanoseconds worth of thought?
viicOop
· 4 months ago
xXcusZ3 U:! p3tte iisZ nOt an iidiiOott OkiisZ:! and plzzzzzzZ iif U gOiing tO judg3 thg3n dOn't 3ven r3ad oOr 3ntter oOn Mashabl3
Peterson
· 4 months ago
I wonder how much of that went to the artists' that were "robbed"?
The RIAA cares nothing about the artists. If they did they would only ask for the 0.99 per song it cost to buy them. The RIAA will milk the record industry until there is no more money to gain then leave the industry for dead.
And if they can go after people who are downloading music from artists not associated with them, then they won't care if they don't have any artists supporting them because they'll make their money even without any artists support until the law steps in and stops them.
So until the law either tells them they can only go after artist associated with them and/or they are only allowed to sue for the cost to buy each song, they will continue going after people not for the artists benefits but so they can make money without having to do anything to get it.
Jeff Taylor
· 4 months ago
You know, some things really never change. I wrote a blog post that partially dealt with the RIAA a year and a half ago - nice to see that they are still using the same scare tactics and spreading the same misinformation.
I thought the RIAA issued a public statement that they were done suing people.
Bunch of Liers
· 4 months ago
Yeah, it was all BS. Anyways, I hope they've spent a lot of money on legal fees and the dude files for bankruptcy and they don't get a dime.
zkelletenz
· 4 months ago
These statutory damages have been upheld under constitutional scrutiny repeatedly.
The question is not whether the dollar amount per song is a fair price. Fines are deterrent, not compensatory. The basic punishment theory (deterrence) equation is as follows:
(fine) (probability of apprehension) > criminal gain
To deter rational actors, the fine must be far greater than the cost of the song to adjust for the remote probability of apprehension. We saw an example that someone like a song copier can appreciate, because it involves a big, rich, corporate malfeasor, instead of a reckless kid, in the Ford/Pinto case. Ford actuaries new that the Pinto's fuel tank was in a dangerous position, by the rear bumper, but went ahead anyway because they only did a compensatory analysis: The cost of settling the number of wrongful death suits did not exceed the cost of the redesign, so they didn't redesign it. What they didn't anticipate is the criminal case, with the totally different, deterrent/punitive goal, that later materialized. Now, corporations consider whether death is considered wrong by society and will result in a criminal fine, and design accordingly. That kind of deterrence is the idea, not just to make them pay for the song, if and when they are caught.
Now, you might think copyright laws are altogether silly and outdated in light of the speed of modern media, but that is a separate issue. If you agree that copying should be criminalized, the question of the proper fine needs to take into account the very narrow probability of being busted.
D Stacks
· 4 months ago
I'm more worried about how they pick their targets and what is their goal? Clearly it's not slowing pirating. Is it an accident that they picked a physics student at the University of Boston or is there something more at work here?
Is the RIAA becoming a civilian hit-squad?
acsenray
· 4 months ago
This post is based on at least two disingenuous assumptions.
1. Damages for willful infringement are not based upon mere compensation for direct losses. So it's dishonest to pretend that the copyright holders are asserting that a single copy is worth $22,500
2. Tenenbaum didn't get nailed for just downloading a single copy. He got nailed for making free copies available to the whole world. So, again, it's not a charge of $22,500 for a single copy.
Grisen
· 4 months ago
I calculated what I would have had to pay. I evened the number of non-commercially acquired songs to about 10.000. I would have had to pay 225 million dollars had the evil thugs in RIAA had their way. And I'm a small fish, who only downloads. These people are insane, and a threat to society. Just coming up with such a number show how fu these people are.
Vile
· 4 months ago
It would make more sense for the RIAA to have a standard amount instead of uuuuh $22,000 for this lady per song, and a quajillion for this guy. The world of technology has evolved past case law and if I were these victims of this hysteria the RIAA is trying to create I would become more vocal and continue to download whatever it is that I want to download. Where is the revolution? People seem to do whatever they are told to do by the government and that is not what this country of the people by the people should ever do. This is an outrage and if I was an attorney I would work for these people pro bono. Artists are there for entertainment, culture, expression, and commercialism is destroying what is "Music". My suggestion to Lars Ulrich is to go on tour and appreciate the fact that people love him and his band. If people are capitalizing on the artists music by using it for financial profiting than I could see a solid arguement by the RIAA. Should I have to pull out my checkbook everytime a song comes on? I made a mix tape in 6th grade for my first girlfriend and finally the RIAA has recovered it and plans on fining me $65,000 for distributing pirated materials withoout the expressed written consent of Journey.....cmon you nazi's! Stand up and be heard and dont let the gov start taxing your email, paying tolls to drive on the interstate, telling you what you can do within your own business place, telling you what causes cancer, imposing property tax increases, making you recieve junk mail, force feeding us the "PATRIOT act". We are not being governed by the people anymore. This smells like another picking and pecking to our rights. Picking and pecking works cause our childrens children wont remember how we had it first hand just like what has happened to us. Just pisses me off and I needed to vent.
All Comments
If anything, the open proliferation of music only helps to make people more aware of a musician's quality, resulting in better publicity and hey, maybe even a wider turnout at concerts, where it's actually about the music and not just selling people round plastic discs or M4A files with crippled abilities.
It's clear that the record labels only want to make money, and seeing as how their constant decisions to deal out lose-lose situations to anyone wanting to obtain music legally makes the whole pirating process seem so much more appealing in terms of convenience and speed, it's no wonder they sue random, hapless individuals for 6-digit figures to make up for all the money they aren't getting, and in my opinion, don't deserve.
Long story short: fuck the RIAA.
I find my sympathy is some what stretched...
Not quite true. The jury had two things to decide, namely (a) whether Tenenbaum's infringement had been willful, and (b) the damages. If the infringement was determined not to be willful, then the range of possible damages per infringing work was $750 to $30,000. However, if the jury determined that the infringement was willful, then the range increased to between $750 and $150,000 per infringing work.
The jury determined that Tenebaum's infringement was willful, and consequently they had to choose an amount between $750 and $150,000 per song, not between $750 and $30,000 as you suggest.
Take a look at compete.com and enter a few "illegal" music download sites. Traffic just keeps growing.
Once music is digital, it's free, no matter how you look at it. Instead they should use the fact that most people get music for free and figure out an advertisement model.
It works for TV shows, why not for music?
Until then FUCK THE RIAA
Artists still earn more then enough to live in excessive wealth while other people have trouble buying food. Lately I've heard about more and more artist who 'detest' the RIAA's approach on these cases.
Earlier this year for example, the band Officer Roseland paid downloaders to download their album. (Source: http://realityme.net/2009/02/19/riaa-take-that-...)
I've read about artists who support downloaders who are found guilty.
In my opinion, RIAA and other organisations like it should be disbanded ASAP. Or they should change direction and be honest( I know it's Utopia I'm thinking of).
This is absurd to the highest level, they usually fail against P2P client software providers so they use a man as an example.
Most of the people a man between 18-30 knows has at least 200 songs downloaded from the net (''illegally'').
This is so sad, I'd spend my entire life having LEGAL revenge somehow against every individual involved in this case from the RIAA (private investigator + adultery = revenge).
I'm try to find the list of songs he downloaded and download them myself.
Illegal downloads do the following: 1) get third parties acquainted with music they would otherwise never heard before (leading to sales) 2) further promote songs by repetition they might have already heard of. 3) lead to an eventual sale of an album that the user might not have otherwise wanted.
Yes I've heard the other side of claims, but it's mostly BS.
I have bought so many albums thanks to one little illegal download. They just want us to buy what they want us to hear.
Don't even get me started with Metallica, I love their music, and I've never bought any of their music since the Napster incident, those greedy fools.
Don't be an idiot. He got a huge judgement against him because he made the songs available for distribution by keeping them in his shared folder. But press like you say he was fined for "downloading." That is just spin by the defense lawyer. Why don't you read about the actual case instead giving us knee-jerk reactions with two nanoseconds worth of thought?
p3tte iisZ nOt an iidiiOott OkiisZ:!
and plzzzzzzZ iif U gOiing tO judg3 thg3n dOn't 3ven r3ad oOr 3ntter oOn Mashabl3
And if they can go after people who are downloading music from artists not associated with them, then they won't care if they don't have any artists supporting them because they'll make their money even without any artists support until the law steps in and stops them.
So until the law either tells them they can only go after artist associated with them and/or they are only allowed to sue for the cost to buy each song, they will continue going after people not for the artists benefits but so they can make money without having to do anything to get it.
You can read that blog post right here if you're interested: http://totallyfreemusic.blogspot.com/2008/02/fr...
Anyways, I hope they've spent a lot of money on legal fees and the dude files for bankruptcy and they don't get a dime.
The question is not whether the dollar amount per song is a fair price. Fines are deterrent, not compensatory. The basic punishment theory (deterrence) equation is as follows:
(fine) (probability of apprehension) > criminal gain
To deter rational actors, the fine must be far greater than the cost of the song to adjust for the remote probability of apprehension. We saw an example that someone like a song copier can appreciate, because it involves a big, rich, corporate malfeasor, instead of a reckless kid, in the Ford/Pinto case. Ford actuaries new that the Pinto's fuel tank was in a dangerous position, by the rear bumper, but went ahead anyway because they only did a compensatory analysis: The cost of settling the number of wrongful death suits did not exceed the cost of the redesign, so they didn't redesign it. What they didn't anticipate is the criminal case, with the totally different, deterrent/punitive goal, that later materialized. Now, corporations consider whether death is considered wrong by society and will result in a criminal fine, and design accordingly. That kind of deterrence is the idea, not just to make them pay for the song, if and when they are caught.
Now, you might think copyright laws are altogether silly and outdated in light of the speed of modern media, but that is a separate issue. If you agree that copying should be criminalized, the question of the proper fine needs to take into account the very narrow probability of being busted.
Is the RIAA becoming a civilian hit-squad?
1. Damages for willful infringement are not based upon mere compensation for direct losses. So it's dishonest to pretend that the copyright holders are asserting that a single copy is worth $22,500
2. Tenenbaum didn't get nailed for just downloading a single copy. He got nailed for making free copies available to the whole world. So, again, it's not a charge of $22,500 for a single copy.