RIAA now wants up to $1.5 Million per CD copied

[SirFozzie]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...gh-enough.html

Before, it was ridiculous enough that making one CD copy illegally was treated as an infringement allowing the RIAA to ask for $150,000 in damages.. Now we're in ludicrous territory, as they decide to ask for a a new law that would treat each separate song on a copied CD is a separate infringement.. so if you happened to get an illegal copy of Britney Spears's new album, not only are you guilty of a crime against good taste, but the 12 track-CD would provide a demand for damages of $1.8 Million.

From the article:

Google's top IP Lawyer, (and the man who wrote a seven-volume treatise on the subject of copyright law), William Patry, called the bill the most "outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the US."

The industries pushing it (music, especially) have an "unslakable lust for more and more rights, longer terms of protection, draconian criminal provisions, and civil damages that bear no resemblance to the damages suffered," he said.

It's like they've decided to see just how over the top they can get... what's next? $250,000 for singing the song in the shower? $500,000 per unauthorized rendition at karaoke night?

[Pumpy Tudors]

maybe don't make illegal copies of CDs and you don't have anything to worry about

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

maybe don't make illegal copies of CDs and you don't have anything to worry about

Holy cats! That's crazy-talk, Batman!

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

maybe don't make illegal copies of CDs and you don't have anything to worry about

Did I say they were in the right? It's like sending someone to jail for life for an overdue library book..

Wait.. Jon, is that you wearing a Pumpy Tudors mask?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Did I say they were in the right? It's like sending someone to jail for life for an overdue library book..

Wait.. Jon, is that you wearing a Pumpy Tudors mask?

maybe bring your library books back on time and you have nothing to worry about

[Groundhog]

RIAA desperately attempts to cling on for dear life. Time to face the facts gentlemen. The times, they are a changin'... in fact, they already have changed.

[BrianD]

Does it really matter what kind of damages they are looking for? At $150k per CD, anyone they go after will have to settle at a lower amount. It isn't like $150k wasn't enough of a deterrent so they need to go higher.

[SirFozzie]

except people are actually fighting (and winning) in court, so maybe the RIAA's is trying to hope that a bigger "hammer" will prevent people from actually fighting it out in court.

[SackAttack]

I actually don't see this as all that ludicrous, even though I'm no fan of the RIAA.

In an environment in which single tracks can be downloaded (and I'm pretty sure most pirates don't go for the lump-sum, full-album file at 100 MB or whatever), the argument can be made that downloading a full album IS twelve separate acts of infringement. Or fifteen. Or eight. Whatever.

Point being, I'm no fan of the "sue your customer base" business model, but I don't see the argument that downloading a full album constitutes ten separate acts of infringement as being terribly out there.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

except people are actually fighting (and winning) in court, so maybe the RIAA's is trying to hope that a bigger "hammer" will prevent people from actually fighting it out in court.

Are they really? I hadn't heard about that. Do you have any links to news articles or court transcripts? I'd love to see how those arguments are playing out.

[MikeVic]

I'm pretty sure it's a lot easier to get an album than an individual song these days.

[SirFozzie]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...orders-ri.html

[SirFozzie]

There's also a lot of colleges slapping down the "John Doe" subopenas that the RIAA wants to file, and even magistrates suggesting the RIAA lawyers should be fined for their tactics:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...-of-maine.html

Like this section:

These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined

The above is in the magistrate's call to have the RIAA Lawyers sanctioned.

edit: Love some of the quotes here at the above site: Apparently the judges DO see what's going on, with quotes such as:

"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero
District Judge
Central District of California
March 2, 2007
Elektra v. O'Brien

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

maybe don't make illegal copies of CDs and you don't have anything to worry about

I went all out on this, and don't buy any CDs, illegal or legal.

[oliegirl]

How would a record company know if you burned a copy of a CD? I can see how they could follow/track illegal downloads, but illegal copies? I just don't even see the point in this law as it's pretty much impossible to know if someone did burn a CD.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Did I say they were in the right? It's like sending someone to jail for life for an overdue library book..

More like executing someone for stealing a book from the library.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

maybe don't make illegal copies of CDs and you don't have anything to worry about

Ah yes, but when the RIAA wants to sue you for putting a CD you bought legally on your computer, then it doesn't matter what they say. They're full of shit.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by dervack

Ah yes, but when the RIAA wants to sue you for putting a CD you bought legally on your computer, then it doesn't matter what they say. They're full of shit.

then don't do that either and see, no problem

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

then don't do that either and see, no problem

you're just being silly. sometimes your routine gets so fucking annoying.


you want to take that route, fine. so Pumpy agrees with the RIAA that he's not allowed to take a cd he legally paid for and put it on his PC or make a mix cd. they tell him what to do with something he purchased, so he obeys and never has to worry.

then one day he buys a pair of stylish Calvin Klein jeans. eventually he decides he doesn't like them anymore and gives them to his neighbor who has fallen on hard times and would be cheered up by having a pair of his own stylish Calvin Klein jeans. Calvin Klein decides that since he is the creator of those jeans he doesn't want them to be used in a manner he didn't intend, so he mandates that he will sue anyone who gives away his brand of jeans.

so now, Pumpy, are you going to continue with your assissine schtick and say it's ok for Calvin Klein to tell you what you can do with his jeans once you've paid for them?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

you're just being silly. sometimes your routine gets so fucking annoying.

Define irony...

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Define irony...

something that is iron-like, or ironesque.

as in:

"The villain had a hardened, irony heart. Cold as ice."

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

something that is iron-like, or ironesque.

as in:

"The villain had a hardened, irony heart. Cold as ice."

I'll admit it. I laughed.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

you're just being silly. sometimes your routine gets so fucking annoying.


you want to take that route, fine. so Pumpy agrees with the RIAA that he's not allowed to take a cd he legally paid for and put it on his PC or make a mix cd. they tell him what to do with something he purchased, so he obeys and never has to worry.

then one day he buys a pair of stylish Calvin Klein jeans. eventually he decides he doesn't like them anymore and gives them to his neighbor who has fallen on hard times and would be cheered up by having a pair of his own stylish Calvin Klein jeans. Calvin Klein decides that since he is the creator of those jeans he doesn't want them to be used in a manner he didn't intend, so he mandates that he will sue anyone who gives away his brand of jeans.

so now, Pumpy, are you going to continue with your assissine schtick and say it's ok for Calvin Klein to tell you what you can do with his jeans once you've paid for them?

That is, of course, a false analogy, since it does not involve making a copy of the jeans.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by clintl

That is, of course, a false analogy, since it does not involve making a copy of the jeans.

RIAA is not suing over the mere fact that you are copying a cd onto your PC or another blank cd. they are suing to get control because they claim you don't have the right to transfer one medium to another. you want to have a 2nd copy of a song? then buy another cd. you want to have the music on your PC? then purchase the songs digitally. that's trying to have control over how you use something after you've bought it legally. you're not allowed to copy a cd, they say, because your rights are limited only to that one cd you bought and you can't transfer its contents around to other listening methods even though you bought it. this is so far past the issue of stealing. this is about controlling your usage of products you buy.

put another way (to appease your mandate for an analogy that involve copying), your cousin in college is doing a paper on Stephen King's Dark Tower series. he's missing the 2nd volume he says, and needs access to a particular chapter of that book. since you have it in your possession, you offer to scan the pages for him and email him the docs so he can finish his paper.

Stephen King now wants to sue you.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

you're just being silly. sometimes your routine gets so fucking annoying.


you want to take that route, fine. so Pumpy agrees with the RIAA that he's not allowed to take a cd he legally paid for and put it on his PC or make a mix cd. they tell him what to do with something he purchased, so he obeys and never has to worry.

then one day he buys a pair of stylish Calvin Klein jeans. eventually he decides he doesn't like them anymore and gives them to his neighbor who has fallen on hard times and would be cheered up by having a pair of his own stylish Calvin Klein jeans. Calvin Klein decides that since he is the creator of those jeans he doesn't want them to be used in a manner he didn't intend, so he mandates that he will sue anyone who gives away his brand of jeans.

so now, Pumpy, are you going to continue with your assissine schtick and say it's ok for Calvin Klein to tell you what you can do with his jeans once you've paid for them?

I'm going to guess that you don't really want a real response from me here.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I'm going to guess that you don't really want a real response from me here.

nah, you're wrong in your opinion or are just dancing around in your clown suit so i don't need a reply. if you say the sky is green and i comeback and correctly remark that the sky is blue i don't need to wait for you to reply "it isn't blue" just for the sake of being tongue in cheek.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

nah, you're wrong in your opinion or are just dancing around in your clown suit so i don't need a reply. if i say the sky is blue i don't need to wait for you to reply it isn't just for the sake of being tongue in cheek or devil's advocate.

Great. We've established that I have one of two points. So what exactly is yours? That I'm annoying you? I'm sure that there are dozens of other people on the board who are sometimes annoyed by me, and I guess I hope that they appreciate you standing up to me.

see, no problem

[Anthony]

the problem is either you're just being cute and doing your normal Muppet act when you post in a thread with your internet tomfoolery, or you simply shrug your shoulders and say "ok" whenever someone tells you what to do with something you bought or whenever someone tries to infringe on your rights.

[Anthony]

Automobile Industry: "we don't want people to hang air freshners in cars anymore. if we catch you with an air freshner we'll sue you."

uproar and backlash ensues throughout the internet...

Pumpy: "if you don't hang an air freshner in your car, there won't be a problem."

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

the problem is either you're just being cute and doing your normal Muppet act when you post in a thread with your internet tomfoolery, or you simply shrug your shoulders and say "ok" whenever someone tells you what to do with something you bought or whenever someone tries to infringe on your rights.

Well, yes, it's at least one of those things, so we have an agreement. I generally like to stop once an agreement has been reached, but if you have anything further, I'll keep playing.

[Atocep]

If the record industry wants to be taken seriously on this issue they need to ditch the RIAA and come up with something that doesn't make them appear like jackasses every time they're in the news.

However, the main issue the music industry has is illegal downloading of music. If it wasn't happening at the rate it is then transfering of media wouldn't be in the spotlight.

Every single discussion I see on copywrite laws and music ends up with those that download music coming up with off the wall analogies and jumping up and down trying to make the discussion about the transfer of media. Yet I've never seen a single one of them actually step up and say "yes, I know its wrong and I just chose to do it anyway". Thats what it comes down to.

If we want to play the analogy game, when I'm speeding on the highway I know that 1.) theres a chance that I could get caught and 2.) that I'll more than likely have to pay a fine if that happens. In that situation its my choice to break the law and I'm prepared to deal with the consequences. If you don't like the consequences then thats a pretty damn good sign that you shouldn't take that risk.

[st.cronin]

I think Pumpy Tudors is very cute.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I know it's illegal. I know it would be wrong if I were to download something that I would otherwise buy, and then not buy it. But I don't know that I've ever done that. I've bought a fair number of albums since the advent of Napster.

[Buccaneer]

From Roger Freidman

CD Sales Starting to Disappear

The end of the physical CD is just moments away.

Last week, according to hitsdailydouble.com, CD sales totaled just over 400,000 copies for the top 10.

The best-selling CD was the soundtrack to "Juno," with 65,000 copies. Alicia Keys was second, with 59,000.

The lowest-selling CD on the top 50 was Kanye West’s "Graduation," with about 12,000.

This is not good news as we approach Grammy week. Digital sales are never going to replace tangible, physical music. Downloading is convenient, but it’s not the same thing as holding in your hands either music you love or think you’re going to love. It can’t.

But so many record companies have disappeared — like Warner and EMI. And radio refuses to play anything new or support quality. Radio programmers think they know what they’re doing, but they’ve simply forced listeners away.

I’ve spent a lot of time in the car this month. Stations I’ve listened to in both New York and Los Angeles have been horrendous. The funny thing is, I’ve left the car in the evening, returned the next afternoon and heard the exact same songs. I’ve come to guess that programmers think listeners are just stupid.

I won’t tell you which stations did this, but it was embarrassing. Each time, I simply turned either to Sirius or to the in-dash CD player. I doubt I’m alone.

By the way, the most absurd record I’ve heard in a long time is Linkin Park’s "Shadow of the Day." It’s a direct rip-off of U2’s "With or Without You." I’m surprised Bono hasn’t sued this extremely mediocre group.

It sure sounds like he has a good case. Play them side by side. Ouch! If only radio would embrace some of the good new music that’s out there instead of supporting this kind of tripe.

While I agree that the CD business is dying or dead, I disagree that there is the added value of having a "tangible, physical" music to hold. That's what an iPod or any other player is for. Legal downloading is where it should be at and is certainly the future (just like for all computer software). I remember the LP to CD transition well, it took time. I just don't understand the need for a CD or having to pay for one, if an online version exist.

[finkenst]

the economy is not doing well, the housing market.. well...

and it should be a slow time for sales of lots of stuf...

what were the numbers last year?

[k0ruptr]

I havent listened to a physical CD in over 6 years.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I havent listened to a physical CD in over 6 years.

I should hope not...

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I should hope not...

Ok bite your tongue...

#1 she was seriously fucking hot in her day
#2 That album, while tacky and freakishly erotic at times, DID in fact have some great songs on it (yes great for the 80's but still, context people CONTEXT)

and #3 Its actually an excellent workout album, almost every song can be run/jogged/worked out to with releative ease.



damnit you people make me sound so metrosexual.


Bastards.

[IMetTrentGreen]

I just did the math. I owe the RIAA $200,000,000.

[watravaler]

They may as well demand a finger...what happens if your kid steals a CD, and is caught, is your life essentially over? For stealing a CD? The same thing that would get you a $500 fine if you did it at the mall?

[k0ruptr]

Originally Posted by watravaler

They may as well demand a finger...what happens if your kid steals a CD, and is caught, is your life essentially over? For stealing a CD? The same thing that would get you a $500 fine if you did it at the mall?

thats a pretty good point.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

maybe don't make illegal copies of CDs and you don't have anything to worry about

Just out of interest is the law only about burning CD's ... I'm presuming that was just an example and MP3's are also covered by the same area?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Just out of interest is the law only about burning CD's ... I'm presuming that was just an example and MP3's are also covered by the same area?

I'm not even sure that I know what the law is. All I know is that, whatever it is, it makes the internet angry.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I'm not even sure that I know what the law is. All I know is that, whatever it is, it makes the internet angry.

Similar to a cold hot dog up the poop chute in that regard.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Similar to a cold hot dog up the poop chute in that regard.

Yeah, that shit blew up like a bowl of chicken noodle soup.

[Drake]

I'm really digging Cory Doctorow's latest thoughts on this whole issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology.../copyright.law

Essentially, we need to overhaul copyright law to differentiate between "corporate copyright" and "folk copyright" in a legal way rather than in a "rule of thumb" way like we've done for the last, oh, forever.

[dervack]

If you have an MP3 player, and just bought a CD, you are not allowed to put the CD on your MP3 player according to the RIAA. The only music you are allowed to put on an MP3 player is music you paid to download.

All of the CD's you purchased in the 90's when there was no MP3 stores online, none of those songs can be placed on an MP3 player unless you buy those songs a second time. And you're ok with this Pumpy?

[Groundhog]

The real reason I've stopped buying CDs in anywhere near the volume I used to (I'd say I buy maybe 3-4 a year now, compared to like 40-50 a few years ago) has little to do with internet downloads, and a lot more to do with the fact that there just isn't anything new coming out anymore that interests me, and I pretty much own all the old stuff I'm interested in too.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Just move to Canada. Downloading is legal (although uploading is not).

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by dervack

All of the CD's you purchased in the 90's when there was no MP3 stores online, none of those songs can be placed on an MP3 player unless you buy those songs a second time. And you're ok with this Pumpy?

Well, that depends on how serious you think I am.