HAHA! The RIAA wants to sue me!

mikea said:
Not a chance, Nick. The RIAA has almost resources becuase a lot of people just pay the $3000 to get off cheap.

Read those sites!

One has the RIAA S.O.P. You're already in their clutches because you told them who you are. They'd have no way to find you otherwise. They've been losing the grounds for the suppoenas of John Does at an IP address. They have been doing discovery and such with the party having no notice of the court action and thus no way to fight it.

The defendants have come up with expert witnesses who are testifying to the obvious that no person is an IP address. The more in touch colleges are fighting based and that and refusing to cooperate.

If you contacted them you're no longer a John Doe.

Talk to a lawyer!
Click to expand...

They still don't have an address, possibly no last name, etc. The original email was sent through the ISP so unless they can weasel the ISP to cough up the rest of his info, they'll still have to go through the John Doe discovery, right? (IANAL, Dave, any idea?)
 
Nick - You're DA man !

:yes:

I haven't laughed like this in years ! :D

The big music corporations earned billions of dollars during many years - making thousands of percent profit.

Thank God for the internet, for WMA, MP3 and the likes...

As far as I'm concerned, Sony can eat their bloody CD's - artists will make more bucks by selling their songs on web sites.
 
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, but I'll leave a few thoughts.

First, this sounds like a scame - you're not addressed by name in the letter.

Second, an internet provider is not required to disclose your ISP address - See RIAA v. Verizon Internet, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C.C.A. 2003). Thus, don't worry about it.

[edit:] It looks like that case is the seminal case - it has been cited positively in numerous other cases.

As a disclaimer, the above is not intended as, nor should it be taken as formal legal advice.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
It's good to pen the response, I'd be a bit hesitant in sending it. The RIAA is trolling for examples to be set in the media. If you stick your head up, they will go after it. Just because they will not win in court, does not mean you will not lose. It will cost you tens if not hundreds of thousands to defend yourself in court, [/qoute]


Henning is very much on target here.

[qoute=Henning;213575]
Remember, the legal system is set up to make lawyers money, you go in without one, they don't like that [/qoute]

This on the other hand is just a rediculous statment! If this were true I'd be out flying my brand new Bo or Baron or something like that. The legal system is a system just like anything else, the medical system, the aviation system, the banking system. All of it takes specialized knowlege thats a fact of life. Ya wanna live in a tree and be the planter hunter gatherer and kill the guy that walks past your tree with a rock because he walked on your turf, basically be the jack of all trades, then go to Borneo. The legal system is set up to resolve disputes plane and simple. This does not mean its not exploited from time to time. But then what democratic system isn't.


[qoute=Henning;213575] ..., I'd just ignore the bait, because the RIAA does have the bankroll.
Click to expand...

Again good advice.
 
smigaldi said:
:D:D:D:D

Just informal legal advice then ???
Click to expand...

Haha, exactly! That's a bit of covering my own tail, I know, but it's better safe than sorry. Especially as this is a public forum, I don't know who could be looking at it, wouldn't want someone to take it as something it isn't.
 
SkyHog said:
No way. Class action lawsuits have one flaw: The participants get out with about $5 in damages, while the lawyers get a few million easily. What would work better is if each of those in the class sued individually. Then the lawyers and the plantiffs make out like bandits.

I hate the state that our legal system is in today, but I have no problem milking money from an organization like the RIAA. I don't know how the founders of that organization sleep at night.
Click to expand...


Here's the thing about class action lawsuits remember in one of the superman movies Richard Prior found a way to steal 1/2 cents from every insurance check or something like that. All the 1/2 cents added up to thousands or millions. Well who gives a hoot about 1/2 a cent? No one but its still wrong. If a corporation does something shady and you end up paying $1.50 for say a flight than you should are you really gonna sue for $1.50? I'd bet not but hey if you want to pay an attorney Several thousand dollars to recover $1.50 or spend hours and hours of your own time pursuing the matter thats your business and I might say more power to ya. So here is where the class action comes in. The suit is to small to make it worth your while so the company keeps over charging you and everyone else they do business with by a very small amount. You really don't feel it to much or at all but the company makes a fortune overcharging all of their customers.

If you come to me and say Adam XYZ company has over charged me $1.50 I want you to sue them I say : What are you nuts? This is gonna cost you too much. You say: But its the principle and don't you want to teach XYZ a lesson? I say: Yes, but I can't afford to fight that battle for free, I have a staff to pay rent leases on office equipment, Medical insurance and a mortgage. I need to earn money. A class action however will allow the attorney to make money it makes taking the case very attractive. Yeah XYZ will have to pay a lot of money and the lawyer will make a lot for working very hard. You may only get back $1.50 or a certificate for 50% off your next purchase or XYZ's product. But you only lost $1.50. And the most important part XYZ corp is taught an expensive lesson.

So you say well XYZ may fold very quickly with a lawyer letter. Well perhaps lets say you spend $50.00 to get $1.50 back so then your out $48.50 and XYZ goes on screwing everyone else. You got a better way I'm all ears.
 
NOTHING I EVER SAY ON THIS BOARD IS LEGAL ADVICE. DON'T LISTEN TO ME. WHAT EVER I SAY IS JUST PERSONAL OPININON AND MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO YOUR SITUATION.GO GET YOUR OWN LAWYER. IN YOUR OWN STATE.

(Chuck please make this a sticky) Note this is also not copyrighted so Obi, Jim, Spike you can all free free to use it
 
AdamZ said:
NOTHING I EVER SAY ON THIS BOARD IS LEGAL ADVICE. DON'T LISTEN TO ME. WHAT EVER I SAY IS JUST PERSONAL OPININON AND MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO YOUR SITUATION.GO GET YOUR OWN LAWYER. IN YOUR OWN STATE.

(Chuck please make this a sticky) Note this is also not copyrighted so Obi, Jim, Spike you can all free free to use it
Click to expand...

I think it should just be a sticky that any statement offered by ANY individual on this board, be it from a lawyer, doctor, techie, CFI, jet jockey, etc, should be construed as personal opinion only, IF THAT. But that's just me. Any my personal opinion. ;)
 
AdamZ said:
...

If you come to me and say Adam XYZ company has over charged me $1.50 I want you to sue them I say : What are you nuts? This is gonna cost you too much. You say: But its the principle and don't you want to teach XYZ a lesson? I say: Yes, but I can't afford to fight that battle for free, I have a staff to pay rent leases on office equipment, Medical insurance and a mortgage. I need to earn money. A class action however will allow the attorney to make money it makes taking the case very attractive. Yeah XYZ will have to pay a lot of money and the lawyer will make a lot for working very hard. You may only get back $1.50 or a certificate for 50% off your next purchase or XYZ's product. But you only lost $1.50. And the most important part XYZ corp is taught an expensive lesson....
Click to expand...

Along those same lines, certain laws entitle the plaintiff to attorney fees on winning. For example, civil rights lawsuits - the damages might not be big for something like being forced to sit at the back of the bus, thereby discouraging lawyers from taking the case in a traditional contingency fee arrangement.

If, however, it's a good case and the law provides for fees, the attorney knows he'll get paid (the standard is usually reasonable compensation), so he'll in theory be more willing to take the case.
 
AdamZ said:
NOTHING I EVER SAY ON THIS BOARD IS LEGAL ADVICE. DON'T LISTEN TO ME. WHAT EVER I SAY IS JUST PERSONAL OPININON AND MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO YOUR SITUATION.GO GET YOUR OWN LAWYER. IN YOUR OWN STATE.

(Chuck please make this a sticky) Note this is also not copyrighted so Obi, Jim, Spike you can all free free to use it
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
AdamZ said:
NOTHING I EVER SAY ON THIS BOARD IS LEGAL ADVICE. DON'T LISTEN TO ME. WHAT EVER I SAY IS JUST PERSONAL OPININON AND MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO YOUR SITUATION.GO GET YOUR OWN LAWYER. IN YOUR OWN STATE.

(Chuck please make this a sticky) Note this is also not copyrighted so Obi, Jim, Spike you can all free free to use it
Click to expand...

And as my buddy/lawyer said once, "This advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it."
 
Nick,

Check your contracts & make sure your cable company had the right and your permission to give out your personal information. If not, then you have a good case against them for violating your privacy.
 
So let me ask a question. I am not familiar with the RIAA litigation. Is everyone who is voicing an issue with this RIAA thing upset that the Aritist's want to control their recordings and to get paid for all dissemination of the music or are you upset that large recording companies are taking a good chunk of the money and paying the Artist pennies per CD?

Would you be upset if it was say the Rolling Stones themselves that were making the legal claim rather than RIAA?

Do you think that you should be able to copy an artist's music for free as many times as you can point and click or burn a CD?

Are you upset that some Artists are millionaires and feel that they don't deserve to make anymore money on thier music?

I'm not sure I understand where the objection lies.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Along those same lines, certain laws entitle the plaintiff to attorney fees on winning. For example, civil rights lawsuits - the damages might not be big for something like being forced to sit at the back of the bus, thereby discouraging lawyers from taking the case in a traditional contingency fee arrangement.

If, however, it's a good case and the law provides for fees, the attorney knows he'll get paid (the standard is usually reasonable compensation), so he'll in theory be more willing to take the case.
Click to expand...


Obi you have a really good point. I think however the idea behind the "HIGH" Compensation that class action guys get is that they want the offending company or entitity to really hurt sort of like punitatvie damages. The offenders can't just look at it as a cost of doing business. I think but am not sure that the "lead plaintiffs" in Class Action cases do get a larger share of the settlement. Since I don't do that kind of work however I can't be sure.
 
Oh, and from their FAQ

P2P_99_FAQ said:
Can I avoid this lawsuit if I immediately delete the illegal music and file-trafficking service from my computer?

No. Furthermore, once litigation becomes a possibility, deleting music files or the P2P service from your computer would violate your obligation to preserve evidence.
Click to expand...
 
AdamZ said:
So let me ask a question. I am not familiar with the RIAA litigation. Is everyone who is voicing an issue with this RIAA thing upset that the Aritist's want to control their recordings and to get paid for all dissemination of the music or are you upset that large recording companies are taking a good chunk of the money and paying the Artist pennies per CD?

Would you be upset if it was say the Rolling Stones themselves that were making the legal claim rather than RIAA?

Do you think that you should be able to copy an artist's music for free as many times as you can point and click or burn a CD?

Are you upset that some Artists are millionaires and feel that they don't deserve to make anymore money on thier music?

I'm not sure I understand where the objection lies.
Click to expand...

- The objection lies with this plan to raise money through legalized extortion while getting the publicity to scare the kids that sharing songs will get them sued. If along the way they go after innocent people who don't even own a computer, then Owell.

- As above these cases are illegal, copyright holders cannot collude on action under copyright. You can't go before a judge and get a judgment on a person who has no idea they're being sued....etc.

- The artists themselves have said that suing your customers is not a good idea. Name another business that has done that.

- There is no evidence that sharing of MP3s have hurt the industry. Sales INCREASED in the heyday of Napster.

- The record labels have gone so far as to push legislation that ANY music has to have a royalty, even the music completely independent artists. They said they'll collect the money and those artists can apply to get it.

- Yes. These folks should not be sharing music to people that don't own the CD they came from. But the RIAA thinks even taking the music off a CD you OWN is a violation. They deny any hint of the concept of fair use.

- There's more. Enuf.

As Bill said, these are the death throes of an industry that had repeated opporutunites to avoid it. They would not and will not get it.
http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201400131
 
mikea said:
- The objection lies with this plan to raise money through legalized extortion while getting the publicity to scare the kids that sharing songs will get them sued. If along the way they go after innocent people who don't even own a computer, then Owell.

- As above these cases are illegal, copyright holders cannot collude on action under copyright. You can't go before a judge and get a judgment on a person who has no idea they're being sued....etc.

- The artists themselves have said that suing your customers is not a good idea. Name another business that has done that.

- There is no evidence that sharing of MP3s have hurt the industry. Sales INCREASED in the heyday of Napster.

- The record labels have gone so far as to push legislation that ANY music has to have a royalty, even the music completely independent artists. They said they'll collect the money and those artists can apply to get it.

- Yes. These folks should not be sharing music to people that don't own the CD they came from. But the RIAA thinks even taking the music off a CD you OWN is a violation. They deny any hint of the concept of fair use.

- There's more. Enuf.

As Bill said, these are the death throes of an industry that had repeated opporutunites to avoid it. They would not and will not get it.
http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201400131
Click to expand...

Not to mention...

Cost to license a song legally: 70 cents per track.
RIAA sues for: 750$ per track.

Is there not a HUGE problem there? Marie Lindor thought so. The RIAA has been trying to fight like hell to prevent this from rolling.

UMG v. Lindor:
[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs' actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, ("Rogers Aff.", [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, ("Sinnreich Aff."), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense."
Click to expand...
And here's one of the articles shown to that judge:
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=83TexasLRev525

The DoJ has requested time to consider intervening on behalf of the RIAA to support the constitutionality of the 750$ per track charges.

In Atlantic v. Boggs, in Corpus Christi, Texas, where the defendant has interposed not just an affirmative defense challenging the constitutionality of the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory, but interposed a counterclaim to that effect as well, thus prompting the RIAA to move to dismiss the counterclaim, the United States Department of Justice has requested, and the Court has granted, an extension of time in which to consider intervening in the case to defend the theory.

The Department of Justice has been granted 60 days in which to intervene, if it so chooses.
Click to expand...
All of this is from http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
 
IP is a facinating area of law. the debate could go on forever. IP is unlike any product. If I pay for 10 gallons of gas and then siphon off five and give them to you Exxon won't care but its obviously different with IP.

I think I have no problem with an artist saying if you take my song you owe me 99 cents but I have a problem if they say I'll sell you my song for 99 cents and then you have to leave it on your Ipod and can't copy it to disc to play in your car.

I see how they loose money if they sell me the song for 99 cents and I put it on line for anyone to download but the fly in that ointment are books. Under that theroy the POA book club and every library in the country would be violating the law.

So I ask what is the difference between me buying Nirvana's Lithium online and then giving it to each of you. and my buying one of Rod Machados books or Harry Potter for that matter and sharing it with each of you. I guess the difference lies in that I cannont read Harry Potter if I mail you my copy of the book. Now I would never think of photocopying Harry Potter. So as I said very interesting debate.
 
AdamZ said:
IP is a facinating area of law.
Click to expand...
I have to deal in that area of law every stinking day. I never would ever have imagined that some could use the the phrase "fascinating area of law" and IP in the same sentence.

Now excuse me while I go off and draft yet another NDA to talk to some people about some IP at a meeting next month. :vomit::vomit::vomit:
 
And Adam, to make the debate even more interesting, how about those pieces of IP that are no longer available through the sanctioned means. The Skylane Pilot's Companion, for example, or numerous CDs that are no longer available. That gets frustrating, too!
 
gprellwitz said:
And Adam, to make the debate even more interesting, how about those pieces of IP that are no longer available through the sanctioned means. The Skylane Pilot's Companion, for example, or numerous CDs that are no longer available. That gets frustrating, too!
Click to expand...

As part of the 3rd time that Disney got the copyright law rewritten so Mickey wouldn't go into the public domain, the industry has actually said that there CANNOT be content that has no owner and thus is public domain. It has to belong to some business. I am not making this up.

That, BTW, when Disney not only built the business on public domain content like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty - which they now claim to own - even Mickey (Steamboat Willie) was based on a well known character.
 
AdamZ said:
IP is a fascinating area of law. the debate could go on forever. IP is unlike any product. If I pay for 10 gallons of gas and then siphon off five and give them to you Exxon won't care but its obviously different with IP.

I think I have no problem with an artist saying if you take my song you owe me 99 cents but I have a problem if they say I'll sell you my song for 99 cents and then you have to leave it on your Ipod and can't copy it to disc to play in your car.

I see how they loose money if they sell me the song for 99 cents and I put it on line for anyone to download but the fly in that ointment are books. Under that theroy the POA book club and every library in the country would be violating the law.

So I ask what is the difference between me buying Nirvana's Lithium online and then giving it to each of you. and my buying one of Rod Machados books or Harry Potter for that matter and sharing it with each of you. I guess the difference lies in that I cannot read Harry Potter if I mail you my copy of the book. Now I would never think of photocopying Harry Potter. So as I said very interesting debate.
Click to expand...
It's really a matter of "disposable commodity." The original CDs can certainly be disposed of by loss, damage and even be traded or sold without violation of any law. But, the contents of the CD can be repeatedly duplicated with perfection. Unlike the original, physical CD, it can be passed to numerous parties in perpetuity. It no longer has the physical limitations as the CD.

As far as the book club, you're passing around the original works. If you began duplicating the books and trading copies then you may run into issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AdamZ said:
IP is a facinating area of law. the debate could go on forever. IP is unlike any product. If I pay for 10 gallons of gas and then siphon off five and give them to you Exxon won't care but its obviously different with IP.

I think I have no problem with an artist saying if you take my song you owe me 99 cents but I have a problem if they say I'll sell you my song for 99 cents and then you have to leave it on your Ipod and can't copy it to disc to play in your car.

I see how they loose money if they sell me the song for 99 cents and I put it on line for anyone to download but the fly in that ointment are books. Under that theroy the POA book club and every library in the country would be violating the law.

So I ask what is the difference between me buying Nirvana's Lithium online and then giving it to each of you. and my buying one of Rod Machados books or Harry Potter for that matter and sharing it with each of you. I guess the difference lies in that I cannont read Harry Potter if I mail you my copy of the book. Now I would never think of photocopying Harry Potter. So as I said very interesting debate.
Click to expand...

Put your seat belt on Adam.

The EULA that Sony had on the root kit CDs said that you had no right to transfer THE CD to another person, or even play it on another device.

These media companies have a fantasy that they should be paid for every person who hears or sees any time you play the content on any device in any room in any venue. That why the MPAA is fighting TiVo on multiroom viewing and Tivo2Go even though the content is protected against transfer outside, and they mandate Macrovision that allows viewing at all to be turned off at any time. Note that a TiVo owner can buy a movie on Amazon that gets deleted 24 hours after any part of it is first viewed. :no: That's the dream.
 
AdamZ said:
So let me ask a question. I am not familiar with the RIAA litigation. Is everyone who is voicing an issue with this RIAA thing upset that the Aritist's want to control their recordings and to get paid for all dissemination of the music or are you upset that large recording companies are taking a good chunk of the money and paying the Artist pennies per CD?

Would you be upset if it was say the Rolling Stones themselves that were making the legal claim rather than RIAA?

Do you think that you should be able to copy an artist's music for free as many times as you can point and click or burn a CD?

Are you upset that some Artists are millionaires and feel that they don't deserve to make anymore money on thier music?

I'm not sure I understand where the objection lies.
Click to expand...

I have a number of specific complaints about the RIAA and the way it does business. For starters, they are mafiaesque in the way they target record companies/artists. "Do business with us, or you'll have no way to protect your income....wink wink."

Second, they got the manufacturers of Kazaa on their side, despite the fact that Kazaa is like a trojan in some cases. For example, lets say you share a document that is not copyrighted on Kazaa, a perfectly legal transaction. You leave Kazaa running (as it does when you click the X, it doesn't close like most programs), and then you rip a CD to your hard drive for your own personal use. Those MP3s you just ripped are suddenly being shared via Kazaa against your own knowledge.

Third, they've been wrong, and in one case, their jackbooted tactics landed an old lady in court for downloading massive amounts of Gangsta Rap. Old white lady that knits. They refused to completely drop the case, even after it was shown that the downloads happened at like 4:00am. The suit got dropped without prejudice, and the RIAA said "We're have the right to come right back if we can find the proof we know exists."

Fourth, they target children in court cases. They are made a 10 year old girl testify, in person, rather than give a deposition of some sort. After the case was settled, the RIAA told the mother that she'd have to not countersue, or they'd "interrogate and confront her little girl at the offices of the RIAA lawyers."

And now, in my case. $3000 for 50 songs I never downloaded? $60 a song? Screw that. I'm not saying I'm an angel, but in this case, I can 100% completely say that I did not download the songs in question. They are a big company that is trying to push me around with money, in a hope that I'll do what they want (give them money), but that's not going to happen.
 
SkyHog said:
Third, they've been wrong, and in one case, their jackbooted tactics landed an old lady in court for downloading massive amounts of Gangsta Rap. Old white lady that knits. They refused to completely drop the case, even after it was shown that the downloads happened at like 4:00am. The suit got dropped without prejudice, and the RIAA said "We're have the right to come right back if we can find the proof we know exists."
Click to expand...
It was dismissed WITH prejudice. That is important as it means that the RIAA cannot haul her back into court for this stuff again.
 
Henning said:
Remember, the legal system is set up to make lawyers money, you go in without one, they don't like that
Click to expand...

AdamZ said:
This on the other hand is just a rediculous statment! If this were true I'd be out flying my brand new Bo or Baron or something like that. The legal system is a system just like anything else, the medical system, the aviation system, the banking system. All of it takes specialized knowlege thats a fact of life. Ya wanna live in a tree and be the planter hunter gatherer and kill the guy that walks past your tree with a rock because he walked on your turf, basically be the jack of all trades, then go to Borneo. The legal system is set up to resolve disputes plane and simple. This does not mean its not exploited from time to time. But then what democratic system isn't.
Click to expand...

The legal system requires far too much specialized knowledge is my point. It could, especially in tort and especially tax issues, be greatly simplified, but it's not. It doesn't deal in fairness, it speciallizes in contortions.
 
In the first music file-sharing case to go to trial, Goliath slaughtered David.
A jury in Duluth, Minn., found Thursday that a single mother of two children was liable for infringing copyright on 24 major-label recordings and awarded the record-industry $220,000 in damages.
The woman, Jammie Thomas, was the first accused infringer to take the Recording Industry Association of America to trial. The association has sued more than 20,000 consumers since 2003, warning them they could face fines of up to $150,000 per song for downloading copyrighted music off the Internet without paying for it. The industry blames such file-sharing for a precipitous sales decline in recent years
Click to expand...
She is not laughing anymore



http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2007/10/music-fan-liabl.html
 
All these lawsuits, and Britney Spears is still an unfit mother.

Very few "artists" (and I use the term very loosely) are worth even an eighty-eight cent download on WalMart.com.
 
Well, good news is that I never heard back from the RIAA.

Bad news is that I never got to fight them in court. I would have made an ass out of myself and the RIAA, and had a blast doing it.

Can you say "Counter suit in the sum of.....one billion dollars...muahahahaha!"

For what crime? Offending my senses with the smell of the plantiff.
 
JohnR said:
All these lawsuits, and Britney Spears is still an unfit mother.

Very few "artists" (and I use the term very loosely) are worth even an eighty-eight cent download on WalMart.com.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Britany is loose? :eek:
 
JohnR said:
All these lawsuits, and Britney Spears is still an unfit mother.

Very few "artists" (and I use the term very loosely) are worth even an eighty-eight cent download on WalMart.com.
Click to expand...

Don't sweat that issue. The RIAA doesn't give any money worth talking about to the artists.

Like, the RIAA is behind the phone ring tone business where the song is 99 cents but a ring tone from it is $3.99 and at that it expires in 90 days. Ring tone sales are a $4 billion industry. The artists get not a dime from ring tone sales.

Any artist will tell you how they have to make concert tours and sell T-shirts to make any money. They don't get it from CD sales.
 
mikea said:
Don't sweat that issue. The RIAA doesn't give any money worth talking about to the artists.
Click to expand...

That would be record companies, Mike. RIAA is a trade association.

Any artist will tell you how they have to make concert tours and sell T-shirts to make any money. They don't get it from CD sales.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Record companies have some of the most onerous contracts of anything out there. The amount that artists get from record companies is miniscule. You should read a recording contract sometime. It's amazing - but since the record companies held a lock on distribution, most artists signed.

This is why some artists are trying to bypass the record companies and sell direct to the public. And part of the reason that new acts rarely make it big.

Which brings me to this point:
the article posted said:
“It’s my personal belief that Sony BMG is half the size now as it was in 2000” because of Internet file-sharing, the record company’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified at the trial.
Click to expand...

No, Ms. Pariser, the reason that Sony BMG is smaller is two-fold: one, you haven't given the public what it wants, which is reasonable access to content over the internet in a cost-efficient means (in other words, you're just like any number of other industries that stand in the way of innovation to protect your cash-cow, then cry foul when it all collapses around you); and two, you have done almost nothing to develop good new artists that would improve the fortunes of your industry and the radio industry both (seriously, you're still hanging on to artists that hit it big in the 60's).

Here is a GREAT story about both points, with specific emphasis on my second point: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02rubin.t.html?_r=1&oref=login
 
legal wheels turn slowly - not hearing from them doesn't necessarily mean they aren't talking, it might mean that they just they aren't talking to YOU.
 
Grumble grumble....mafioso style bastards.....grumble grumble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top