Old story but great take. Hope the RIAA gets owned.

[Qutsmnie]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_18/b4082042959954.htm

Its a great story. Heres what I think are facts that make the claim the RIAA is greedy. (note: I used the word greedy not guilty of anything...)

1) RIAA knows that statistically with the volume of cases it has that it will occasionally make an error.
2) RIAA knows that when it does make an error it will be very expensive to convince RIAA of that error, and all the while the RIAA will be threatening to take everything you own unless you settle.
3) RIAA has no contingency to deflect some of its winnings from the rightly accused to pay for the lawyers of the wrongly accused.

I think the RIAAs bit that it "took the high road" only contributes to how slimy it looks. It really should have had a good faith plan for the wrongly accused based on the size of the nets it was casting. It had nothing but strongly arm tactics and attempts to intimidate with agreements of no countersuit until the end.

When this hits a jury, RIAA is going to cry "omgz theft" and the defense is going to name the real bad guy who was doing the pirating by name deflecting all that sentiment.

I hope they see a jury and get burned. I don't know what law will do it. But they deserve it. This was nasty business they engaged in.

[Synrax]

So did Anderson receive any compensation from the whole process? It read as only Lybeck was paid for his time.

[korthuran]

She's going for compensation. But all of her fees/bills for the case were covered.

[Lenilya]

Generic response #001

**** the RIAA. :censored

[Toprem]

"But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action. We simply cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry."

What a goddamn load of ****ing ********. Excuse me while I cry tears for millionaires that are out of the pittance that they get from record sales. Also, nothing is being stolen. Copyright infringement is NOT theft.

[Slathe]

What a goddamn load of ****ing ********. Excuse me while I cry tears for millionaires that are out of the pittance that they get from record sales. Also, nothing is being stolen. Copyright infringement is NOT theft.

Well, it may not be theft by a criminal law definition, although there are growing possibilities of using criminal law as a method of penalizing copyright infringement (it's on the books, but not used). However, you are usurping someones exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display their work of authorship. In some ways, that's worse, because you're not just taking a material thing, you're taking a right.

[Koru]

Y'know, if it were the people pirating music that were screwing the musicians up the ass with no lube and insuring they make a mere pittance from cd sales... but then someone beat the pirates to that.

[Aidden]

Again with this argument.

I totally agree that the record companies are pretty much the lowest form of life on the planet next to only the movie industry execs.

That being said, that doesn't give you the right to stick it to the man by Stealing the music you didn't pay for. If the artist who created the music wants you to have it, then go for it. If they don't want you to have it without paying for it, respect their wishes.

I am finding it harder and harder to listen to the argument anymore that the only way a band can break into the industry anymore is by being screwed over by a record company. That used to be the case, but with the internet being what it is, there are plenty of indie bands making it very big these days. So someone choosing to go the route of the record company doesn't need your help or pity.

This overall attitude that by stealing music you're helping to push for a revolution in the industry is simply ********. For the industry to change, the people that make the music need to drive the changes.

All you do by taking something that isn't yours is prove their is a demand for the product. Stop using it altogether for a couple of months and see how they respond.

[Slathe]

I agree with Aidden here, but just wanted to add that the copyright act attempts to balance the bargaining power between authors and publishers by having special rules in place to protect the author who, generally, is in the worse position. Piracy has the possibility of destroying the marketability of a work of authorship, which means that the author, not the publisher, has less bargaining power when they come to the table, which only makes the situation worse. Put simply, if a group is already having their music stolen and played, why would a recording industry pay premium for the exclusive right for it (or if they anticipate it will be stolen). The exclusive right to publish losing value means that the stronger party, at the bargaining table, will shift the cost. Thus, you only hurt the author, not the publisher/recording industry.

[Koru]

It's just hard to believe that the RIAA isn't intentionally running an extortion racket considering their track record/reputation without y'know, bothering to make sure that the people they're shaking down even did something. So you read a story like this and think "hm, gee, do I think the RIAA is capable of doing this based on how the guys have treated the artists in the past?" and the answer becomes a resounding yes. Yeah, the artists have way more options now, but the fact that they were perfectly ok with doing this to their own people in the past it doesn't exactly make you think gosh, well this news story sounds soooo biased and I'm sure they're really just nice people looking out for their interests. It makes you think that the difference between the mafia and RIAA is that the mafia is at least little more honest about the fact that you got shaken down.

[Koru]

I should note that my first post was not to defend piracy, it was written quite late at night and I might have made it too vague due to the hour, it was to say that with the RIAA's reputation when that article is read they pretty much lose most of the benefit of the doubt. Piracy is what it is. But if a douchebag accuses someone of being a thief chances are you're gonna look at the situation going "hm, well he's a douchebag, why should I believe someone like him?" and then on top of the 'thief' has this much towards them not being the guilty party... I know (or rather knew in the past because well he was a douchebag and screwed a lot of people who were his friends) a guy who's dicked over his friends without blinking, if he accused a stranger of stealing from him I'm not gonna go "well I should keep an open mind, maybe this guy did steal from him", I'm gonna go "****, knowing the little **** he's just trying to **** over a stranger by throwing those kind of accusations around just like he did with to us his supposed friends".

[ciba]

That being said, that doesn't give you the right to stick it to the man by Stealing the music you didn't pay for.

I maintain that this wouldn't be a problem today if the record industry hasn't fought the internet tooth and nail since its inception. If they had adapted from the start, instead clinging to physical media, imagine what we'd have.

They still refuse to adapt. It's easier for me to 'pirate' music than to pay for it (excluding the cost of paying for it). That's not right.

So now I only buy one new CD every couple of months, where I'd probably buy a couple of tracks a week online if I didn't have to do the CD burn hokey pokey to get DRM off it.

[DarthEnder]

That being said, that doesn't give you the right to stick it to the man by Stealing the music you didn't pay for. You're right. Being a rogue is what does that!