RIAA Admits 70¢ Per Song

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
By now, everyone knows the lady being sued by the RIAA is arguing that the claim of statutory damages in the amount of $750 per song is excessive. The defendant’s point is that the RIAA collects 70¢ per song from the likes of Apple and Napster so damages should be capped accordingly. The RIAA has disputed this claim, that is until now where they admit that 70¢ per song is “the correct range.”

Ironically, as the RIAA battles on in its supposed struggle to keep its 70-cents-per-download wholesale price "confidential", in UMG v. Lindor, it has publicly filed court papers admitting that the 70-cents-per-download price is "in the correct range."
Click to expand...
 
So if this pricing structure sticks what happens to all the previous lawsuits where the RIAA collected MORE then 70 cents per song? :confused:
 
Steve said:
The defendant’s point is that the RIAA collects 70¢ per song...
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that that statement is glaringly inaccurate. The RIAA is an industry trade association that acts on behalf of its member companies, the major record labels. It does not collect fees for music sales of any kind (including downloads), nor does it distribute any moneys to record companies or artists. The member companies pay dues to the RIAA (based on their sales volume).

As far as "its supposed struggle to keep its 70-cents-per-download wholesale price "confidential"", I will point out that price-fixing is illegal. It's been some years since I worked in the biz, but my educated guess is that record labels negotiate with the download providers individually and there are likely various pricing tiers. For example, the latest top hit by a popular artist might command a higher price than older catalog tracks by lesser-known artists.
 
I hereby invite all of the RIAA and ClearChannel executives and other narrow-minded, ass-sticked employees thereof to a wonderful evening out on my Lustania-inspired ocean yacht.








Oh no, here comes a u-boat.:eek:
 
HA! By this admittance, that means the $1.65T lawsuit they brought against AllOfMP3 should really only be around $1.54M. Funny, and sad at the same time.
 
Lethal you do raise a vaild point, but the fact is these "legal" music services are selling them in the cents, not hundreds of dollars. The court then should assign someone to audit the prices and the case should be made accordingly. If I was one of the people who were sued for thousands and paid that I would start up a whole new lawsuit. Sadly most these people don't have money and can't do that. Whats even sadder is the people who settled out of court. They admitted that they screwed up, paid a price and the charges were dropped.
 
GJSNeptune said:
I hereby invite all of the RIAA and ClearChannel executives and other narrow-minded, ass-sticked employees thereof to a wonderful evening out on my Lustania-inspired ocean yacht.








Oh no, here comes a u-boat.:eek:
Click to expand...

lol nice reference
 
hity645 said:
Lethal you do raise a vaild point, but the fact is these "legal" music services are selling them in the cents, not hundreds of dollars.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing that at all, and I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA's tactics or the $ amounts they've sought via lawsuits.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of mis-information out there about what the RIAA is and how it operates. And many "legit" news articles get it wrong, fueling the "fuck the RIAA" attitude I see so much of here.

To reiterate, the RIAA is not an independent agency operating on its own behalf to line its own coffers. Everything it does is done at the wishes of its membership, the major record labels.

I do think the $ amounts have been excessive, but they are going after punitive damages. In P2P filesharing, a single download/sharing can multiply the results exponentially. I recall some old shampoo commercial where you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc., etc. until there are zillions all using the same shampoo. Except you actually have to buy shampoo to use it.

Would there be any incentive not to shoplift if the worst that could happen if you did got caught would be that you'd be required to repay the store for the wholesale (not even retail) price of the goods you stole?
 
Lethal said:
I'm not disputing that at all, and I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA's tactics or the $ amounts they've sought via lawsuits.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of mis-information out there about what the RIAA is and how it operates. And many "legit" news articles get it wrong, fueling the "fuck the RIAA" attitude I see so much of here.

To reiterate, the RIAA is not an independent agency operating on its own behalf to line its own coffers. Everything it does is done at the wishes of its membership, the major record labels.

I do think the $ amounts have been excessive, but they are going after punitive damages. In P2P filesharing, a single download/sharing can multiply the results exponentially. I recall some old shampoo commercial where you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc., etc. until there are zillions all using the same shampoo. Except you actually have to buy shampoo to use it.

Would there be any incentive not to shoplift if the worst that could happen if you did got caught would be that you'd be required to repay the store for the wholesale (not even retail) price of the goods you stole?
Click to expand...

But if all the songs are from the same person the RIAA will get $750 * a zillion songs. Where as they should be getting $0.70 * a zillion songs.

For every song copied, they're getting 1,000x more money off the song. That's simply bad logic. They should be getting 70 cents for each person caught not $750 for each person caught and possibly download because if they caught the guy that did copy the song, the RIAA would get another $750.

That initial $750 had already covered the second guy's copying. Why is the second guy still being charged $750?
 
Those morons are suing people only because they failed to create a modern working distribution method for content. For many, price is really not the issue with p2p - it's the easy obtainability and powerful search functions which give access to a huge catalog of music.

This hasn't been available legally until recently and even then the media is crippled by lame DRM schemes. Not to mention root kits, shady deals with Microsoft and hardware manufacturers including DRM on hardware level etc. etc.

They have failed in their task but they have a huge amount of money and lawyers - so they sue normal people only because they wanted to use a modern distribution method. Who wants to drive to a music store, try to _manually_ find records from the shelves and then in the worst case cue up to the auditing players in order to find out if there's more than 1 good song on the $30 cd? Nobody. With the gas and time expended that 1-2 hit songs might in the end cost you $80 or more and leave you completely dissatisfied in the end finding that the record is not worth inserting to the player if it only has one measly song that you like and the rest is utter crap.

I really wish that the russian mob running AOMP will invest 0.01% of the value they got sued for in order to hire hitmen to chase the RIAA. Justice would, then, be served.
 
I say if someone is downloading music to use themselves, no one is out any money. The type of person who does that is not likely to go buy the music anyway. If they want to sue someone, sue the jerkoff that sold me the full 8 seasons of Stargate SG1 off of eBay. Their info said they were from New York, but the package came from Hong Kong, and it was a horrible hacked up copy. Most disks don't play and the printing on the DVD is obviously faks. Nothing I can do, the Luser was "no longer a registered user" when the DVD's arrived, and Paypal won't refund the cash, they don't care if it was counterfit or not, I got the DVD's, that's as far as they care. So lock up Susy Homemaker for downloading some Metallica, but let these jerks hide behind international borders because it's too hard to bust them. Blah. I hate this RIAA bullshit. Let's all go download music, if everyone in America did it, they wouldn't have time to sue us all.
 
Lethal said:
I'm not disputing that at all, and I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA's tactics or the $ amounts they've sought via lawsuits.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of mis-information out there about what the RIAA is and how it operates. And many "legit" news articles get it wrong, fueling the "fuck the RIAA" attitude I see so much of here.

To reiterate, the RIAA is not an independent agency operating on its own behalf to line its own coffers. Everything it does is done at the wishes of its membership, the major record labels.

I do think the $ amounts have been excessive, but they are going after punitive damages. In P2P filesharing, a single download/sharing can multiply the results exponentially. I recall some old shampoo commercial where you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc., etc. until there are zillions all using the same shampoo. Except you actually have to buy shampoo to use it.

Would there be any incentive not to shoplift if the worst that could happen if you did got caught would be that you'd be required to repay the store for the wholesale (not even retail) price of the goods you stole?
Click to expand...

If they're going after punitive damages, they should go after the .70 per song + damages to be decided by the court. Even if they only get the .70 per song, the money people are out by going to court and it all being a matter of public record is bad enough. For settlements, frankly they can ask for whatever, unfortunately.

Okay, by your logic I have to give up my favorite expression, which is "fuck the RIAA". I guess now I have to switch to "fuck the recording industry"... :D
 
Man thats lame, charge people thousands for a few songs when it's indeed only really 70 cents a song. That makes a hundred illegal songs only $7.
 
qkool said:
But if all the songs are from the same person the RIAA will get $750 * a zillion songs. Where as they should be getting $0.70 * a zillion songs.
Click to expand...

Why is the second guy still being charged $750?
Click to expand...
Apparantly, you do not understand the definition of (or did not read it when lethal said it) what "Punitive" damages means.
 
Ockie said:
Man thats lame, charge people thousands for a few songs when it's indeed only really 70 cents a song. That makes a hundred illegal songs only $7.
Click to expand...

100 x $0.70 = $70.00, not $7


This is why our education system is the worst in the nation.


If it's "so cheap" to get music legally, then, there should be no file sharing going on, RIGHT?
 
Lethal said:
I do think the $ amounts have been excessive, but they are going after punitive damages. In P2P filesharing, a single download/sharing can multiply the results exponentially. I recall some old shampoo commercial where you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc., etc. until there are zillions all using the same shampoo. Except you actually have to buy shampoo to use it.
Click to expand...

Using this logic, they could go firing off lawsuits to people that did pay for the music in the first place. If they are going to make the assumption that once someone has the file they are going to keep distributing it. Also, the original person could only be held responsible for the people they passed it along to, not their friend, then that person's friend, etc. If so, they might as well start suing the companies that distribute it legally in the first place for making it available.

Lethal said:
Would there be any incentive not to shoplift if the worst that could happen if you did got caught would be that you'd be required to repay the store for the wholesale (not even retail) price of the goods you stole?
Click to expand...

If you shoplift in a store, the retailer is the one that prosecutes. Not the wholesaler, or more accurately in this case, the buying group the retailer is a member of.
 
wtburnette said:
If they're going after punitive damages, they should go after the .70 per song + damages to be decided by the court.
Click to expand...

Technically, they are. However, in the US court system, punitive damages, and "pain & suffering" damages, and things similair to that, in the civil cases are "requested" by the plaintiffs.

If you hit me with your car, and, say, make me a parapalegic, I dont sue you and say "whatever you think is fair, your honor"

I say .. "I can only work half as much as I used to, I make $300,000K / year, I've got 30 years left before I retire, taking C.O.L.A. into consideration, that means you just cost me $9 million dollars in income, + I'm going to, over the remainder of my life, have to spend probably $700k-1200k for medical concerns, and, you've also affected my life in immeasurable other ways, so.. uhm, $30 million outta do it"

Then we leave it up to the court system to decide whether or not I should actually get that.

That's what happens, when there is a "settlement agreement reached" usually, that means, the plaintiff accepts a lower amount, such as, in my example, I'd take 15 million for my loss of income, medical, and pain.

The riaa, on behalf of sonybmg, interscope, wind-up, atlantic, et. al is suing for so much in punitive damages that the intent is that, if they actually DO win, that even AFTER settlement, the "defendant" can't possibly recover, and is forced out of business. Such as the prior version of napster.


The problem with the RIAA is the tactics which they use to find people, or organizations, to sue. It has been shown time and time again, that they even sued people .. WHO DON'T OWN A COMPUTER ..
Or, they sue ISPs for "allowing" people to download music which is like suing the department of transportation because people speed on the highway. Or corpses


This, calls into question, the validity of ANY of their claims against ANYONE.

If they can, truly believe that a dead, 83 year old woman (who, honestly, I doubt was downloading music when she was alive....) or people who don't own a computer can be music pirates, then, how can ANY of their claims of any piracy be believed.



FWIW, I probably have the worlds largest collection of LEGAL mp3s.
Not a single 1 downloaded. Not a single 1 with DRM.

~150GB
 
FurBurglar said:
Using this logic, they could go firing off lawsuits to people that did pay for the music in the first place. If they are going to make the assumption that once someone has the file they are going to keep distributing it.
Click to expand...

Except, that "legally" purchased, downloaded music (such as iTunes) are SUPPOSEDLY "safe" from redistribution.

They aren't suing people who buy music on itunes, which has DRM. They are suing people who have the open, unprotected, mass distribution capable "Evil" file extensions such as .MP3.

Of course, the DRM on things such as itunes is a joke, anyhow.

The problem that RIAA has with "allofmp3" is that

1) I doubt any of the money that they collect for selling music goes to the actual music industry (or more importantly, artists). I could be wrong about this.

2) they offer the music in non copy protected formats

3) they offer the music in GOOD quality if you want it (320K mp3, .ogg, .flac, lossless .wma, .WAV) far better quality than you can get from the likes of itunes.

4) They, (allofmp3) doesn't load you up with spyware, rootkits, etc, like some of the RIAA's member companies (sony?)


Man, I wish I could combine my posts.

Lethal, if you are reading, would it be possible to stack all my replies into one long reply?
 
Actually Allofmp3 pays royalties to a russian equivalent of RIAA. It regularly sends cheques to RIAA but it hasn't cashed one of them in fear of legalizing AOMP in the process. The russians sell the music in volume and in competitive prices. Prices that the music mafia will not allow, they want price fixing and market dominance.
 
Imagine all the money the RIAA would have now if they just put up all their artists songs on the web for $0.70 each.

/asshole!
 
The RIAA name has become synonymous with the recording industry in general because they are the mouthpiece of all the major record labels. While it may be factually incorrect to claim the RIAA is “lining its own coffers”, they do represent all the major record labels, they are the PAID spokesman for the industry as well as the enforcement arm.

If this was an episode of the Sopranos, the RIAA would be the henchman / family lawyer for the mob. Just because the henchman / family lawyer for the mob isn’t actually a mobster himself does not exonerate him from the actions he takes on behalf of his clients.

Having said that, the “f*ck the RIAA” attitude you speak of is fueled by the RIAA.

As far as the shop lifting analogy goes, the amount restitution that can be sought for bad checks, shoplifting and other crimes of this nature (in most states) is 3x the RETAIL value of the product.

The RIAA seeks 1000 times retail value…which leads us back to the mob enforcer image and “F the RIAA” attitude that is once again fueled by their own actions.

Just my opinion on the matter ;)


Lethal said:
I'm not disputing that at all, and I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA's tactics or the $ amounts they've sought via lawsuits.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a lot of mis-information out there about what the RIAA is and how it operates. And many "legit" news articles get it wrong, fueling the "fuck the RIAA" attitude I see so much of here.

To reiterate, the RIAA is not an independent agency operating on its own behalf to line its own coffers. Everything it does is done at the wishes of its membership, the major record labels.

I do think the $ amounts have been excessive, but they are going after punitive damages. In P2P filesharing, a single download/sharing can multiply the results exponentially. I recall some old shampoo commercial where you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc., etc. until there are zillions all using the same shampoo. Except you actually have to buy shampoo to use it.

Would there be any incentive not to shoplift if the worst that could happen if you did got caught would be that you'd be required to repay the store for the wholesale (not even retail) price of the goods you stole?
Click to expand...
 
It may be years of waged war between DRM and P2P networks, but ultimately I think the record labels and RIAA will eventually find that they are trying to fight a losing war. The prices of individual songs has dropped considerably and has become an option in an otherwise "CD" only world. In the 80's, you either went and bought a CD or you hoped to hear what you wanted on the radio.

The point is that revenue for music media has decreased because of more buying options and competition. Later on down the line, I think the RIAA will find itself with less money and will not be able to continue fighting. The tobacco companies used to wield great power until their money supply dried up.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
This is why our education system is the worst in the nation.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be "world".

Wouldn't that be "This is an example of what happens when you have the worst education system in the world."... Because someone not being able to do math isn't WHY the education system sucks, it's the RESULT when it sucks.

So I would say THIS (CyberDeus's statement) is an example of what happens when you have the worst education system in the world. Except of course that we don't so "whatever".
 
IS it just me... Or does Allofmp3 have it right?

What would happen if a site like that was legal in the US?
Let's see...

1. The cost of songs would be less then 20% of the current prices..
2. People would, because of cost and convenience, buy probably close to 10 times the volume that they do now... Copying would even be less convenient. Meaning that in the end, the RIAA would likely collect just as much as they do now or more.
3. The RIAA would save a lot of legal fees...

Oh wait! I know! The cost of CD'S would be seen as completely insane by comparison!
But you know, the cost of CD'S - IS - insane. Even if they halved it, people would still buy them for the nice packaging & sound quality. It probably only costs $2 to make them.

For both CD's AND downloads, I think the RIAA should cut the crappy prices, and scrap DRM. Their sales would increase so much that it would make up the profits anyhow.

Can't the RIAA and it's members see any benefit to actually being seen as a friendly entity, promoting good music and good times, rather then trying to stab their customers??

On topic though...

Punitive damages are one thing, but the $750 is insane. But look at it this way - Those poor RIAA people have so much in legal fee costs! How would 0.70 make a dent in it? :rolleyes:

They are all about making examples. Making a point to scare people. The $750 is nothing more then that.

PD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top