RIAA Spent $17.6 Million In Lawsuits... To Get $391,000 In Settlements?
from the business-as-usual dept
Last month we discussed the question of whether or not the RIAA's legal strategy was a success or not. An RIAA supporter had claimed that it was clearly a success, since most of the people the RIAA sued chose to settle. We questioned that, pointing out that the bottom line of the major record labels was shrinking fast, and the rate of file sharing was increasing. At the same time, we pointed out that the record labels themselves had admitted that the lawsuits were "a money pit." Ray Beckermann has done some digging and is pointing out just how big a money pit it really was. In looking through the RIAA's financial statements, he notes over $17.6 million spent on big name law firms who were the key players in the lawsuit campaign. And all those settlements? In 2008, they brought in $391,000. The 2007 numbers were even worse. $21 million in legal fees, plus another $3.5 million for "investigative services" to bring in... $515,929 in settlement fees. 2006? $19 million in legal fees, $3.6 million in investigative services... $455,000 in settlements.So if we're doing some quick math, over a three year period, the RIAA spent over $64 million on this lawsuit campaign... which brought in about $1.4 million in settlement money. We're talking about getting back about 2% of the money spent.
Wow. These lawsuits weren't just a money pit. They were an economic disaster. And don't buy the argument that this was the cost of "educating" people not to file share. If that were the case, then file sharing wouldn't still keep increasing. There's no way you can look at these numbers and not realize just how disastrous the RIAA's legal campaign was. And yet the RIAA bosses are getting raises? Incredible. It's been a dozen years since the RIAA had a very real opportunity to lead the recording industry into the digital era by adapting and embracing what the technology allowed. Instead, they've fought it the whole way, costing millions of dollars, and severely impacting the labels' bottom lines. Can anyone explain why the labels are still supporting the current RIAA leadership when it appears that every step of the way they've made exactly the wrong decisions?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, because running a Fortune 500 company these days isn't about insuring long term success, it is about short term profit's and bonuses based on short term profits. With all the incest at board level, this kind of back patting and quid pro quo is to be expected. I doubt any of the executives really care about the long term success of the recording industry, only about how much money they'll be able to personally milk out of it regardless of its success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
also, how much of these legal actions are still pending? are they all 100% complete? or more typically, is the court system dragging its heels and many of these cases will only get brought to judgment in 4 or 5 years?
mike, are you attempting to discredit the riaa? why be so blatant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOL this has got to be a TAM imposter. That was funny though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And no one is discrediting anything. The data is in front of your nose. The RIAA is spending money faster than they are making it. This is the path to financial ruin.
They would have done better if they had invested in ways to improve the music business. Take advantage of the new tools and formats that kept popping up, instead of trying to go after the easy money and suing people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Precedent. They got the verdict they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am unclear why Mike needs to do hardly anything other than spread word about what they do.
That alone makes nobody like them or want them around, including most artists as the current trends seem to indicate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yes, some cases are still pending, but with their current record of 'success', 98% of the cases need to still be pending to break even.
At this point, they are jamming more coins into the slot machine praying it will pay off with repeated jackpots. This may not be a bad strategy in today's legal climate, but the jackpot on this particular slot machine is only a small percentage of what they have already put into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are right, it wasn't about the money. It was about making examples and being able to use the maximum penalties as threats to coerce submission. They knew the case would never stand up to appeal based on the excessive penalties. Now with both cases having the judgements reduced, it leaves RIAA and the MPAA with out any ability to threaten or coerce. It will also lead to alot more people fighting these cases in the future because the monetary risk is less.
"also, how much of these legal actions are still pending? are they all 100% complete? or more typically, is the court system dragging its heels and many of these cases will only get brought to judgment in 4 or 5 years?"
Truth be told you are an IDIOT. There is a 2% return on the law suits. For them to make a profit at this rate, better than 98% (Ninety Eight Percent) of the cases would still need to be open. That doesn't include future legal or administrative costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I fire up kazza or what ever. The bloodhounds for the RIAA lawyers see that I have 10 songs in the shared folder.
I get a letter telling me I can settle for $2,500.00.
As I don't have $30,000 to pay a lawyer, I say ok sure.
That money is counted as settlement cash. I might only be paying a small sum at a time, but the total is the settlement.
Only a micro percentage of cases are in the courts pipeline.
So no blatant discreditation of the RIAA is need from Mike, The RIAA has done a swell job on it's own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thomas and Tenebaum could have paid the small amounts - they could never pay the large sum - and of course by proceeding to trial the RIAA incurred more legal expenses than they could ever hope recover.
The settlement offers were most definitely about the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they managed to get that much money for lawsuits alone, I guess piracy isn't killing the music business after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Won't somebody think of the lawyers?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I had the same thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slight Logical Flaw Here
While I don't doubt that the lawsuits have been ineffective, the fact that file sharing has increased does not conclusively prove the law suits to be a waste of time. It's entirely possible that the law suits reduced the growth of file sharing, but without some real numbers its hard to know. Very few companies can make a business model based on suing people anyway (outside of law firms, of course, who clearly made a killing running these lawsuits).
To contribute something a bit more meaningful though, the real problem with the RIAA's approach is that they aren't changing the culture that surrounds file sharing. These lawsuits are always mentioned to me by people from a generation that doesn't file share anyway... never by the under-30 crowd that makes up the majority of file-sharers. So even if these lawsuits do have some sort of "educational" (/intimidation) value, they are only being noticed by the people who didn't file share in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
The majority? Says who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
Fair enough. But I would argue that the overall bottom line of the record labels is the proof. The whole point of these lawsuits was supposed to help save the record labels. That has clearly failed.
You could argue (weakly, as it is easily countered) that these actions slowed the decline of the labels, but a business strategy focused on not dying as quickly is not a real business strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
How does it not prove that the lawsuits were a waste of time. It created a ton of bad press for the labels. Made people search on "what is p2p file sharing?", "what is limewire?", etc.
"It's entirely possible that the law suits reduced the growth of file sharing, but without some real numbers its hard to know."
In the month to month data, 3 months after the lawsuits started, there was an increase in the usage of p2p software. Combining quarterly age and p2p usage statistics allows you to show a substantial hop in usage in the 18 - 24 year old range. Using past charts of disruptive technologies as a basis for forecasting, brings the failure of each of the remaining big record labels about a year closer. That true if there is a correlation between the increase in p2p usage and the lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
Short answer: unauthorized filesharing might have been even more prevalent if the lawsuits hadn't taken place. An increase in the overall amount doesn't address that possibility, and therefore is not conclusive proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slight Logical Flaw Here
it's also entirely possible that these lawsuits prevented another terrorist attack on new york city. after all, piracy supports terrorism and these lawsuits are an obvious deterrent to both piracy and terrorism.
you should also note that both steve jobs and lance armstrong did not die from cancer. it is entirely possible that these lawsuits stopped the spread of cancer in both of these cases.
while it might be a coincidence, i think it's also entirely possible that these lawsuits helped the united states to elect it's first black president.
so i ask you, isn't $17.6 million a small price to pay to put an end to racism, cancer, and international terrorism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is silly reasoning.
Unless you can make a comparison between the actual increase in unauthoirized file sharing and the amount of unauthorized file sharing that would have happened in the absense of the lawsuits, you can't state definitively whether this "cost" was well spent or not.
Note that I'm not saying it *was* well spent, just that the reasoning employed above is faulty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyway, the conclusion that the lawsuit strategy has not helped (and/or has hurt) may be totally valid, and there is certainly evidence to support that.
But the notion that only a decrease in absolute numbers of unauthorized file sharing could justify spending money on lawsuits is not a very good argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One would hope that when you spend $20 million to patch a leak, you don't receive merely a decreased (but still positive) growth in the water flow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, I'll also note that the article sort of assumes that all those legal fees went to lawsuits. It wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA uses some of the same law firms for non-lawsuit-related legal work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, even if it was half - they have been a total failure to prevent even the growth of file sharing and returned less than 5% of the money spent. They would have been better off burning the money to heat their offices and reducing their utility bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words, it would be considered a success since even though file-sharing has increased, it would have increased MORE if not for the lawsuits?
It seems to me like ANY growth in file sharing in the face of a campaign against it means that the campaign has failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, I don't think you're saying *quite* the same thing "in other words," but that's the general point.
If bailing out water on a sinking ship slows the sinking long enough to get to some other rescue means, then I'd call the bailing successful, even if you keep sinking while you're bailing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If this is indeed the case, the question should be "how much money was protected compared to the amount spent". I'd honestly be amazed if the amount of cash dumped into lawsuits, legal campaigns and lobbying was anywhere close to the actual money lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
"the question should be "how much money was protected compared to the amount spent"."
Sure. The question should always be what is the benefit v. the cost (including opportunity cost of not spending the money on other things), but looking only at absolute numbers doesn't accurately evaluate whether there was a benefit or what it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In boat terms, they thought they were patching the hole, but in reality they were bailing out the boat*. And the hole keeps getting bigger while their bucket does not.
So to sum up, yes it was a failure because it did not accomplish any rational goal it could have been designed for, whether that was reducing file sharing or providing a transition period to a new business model. The only way this strategy could be considered a success is in pointy haired boss terms:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-04-22/
* at best. It seems more likely to me they were actually dumping more water in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to also imagine that the decision was made inside the vacuum of self-righteousness that must exist in the recording label boardrooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or how about, "The surgery was a complete success, but the patient died".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This increase in piracy shows that the French are not changing their downloading habits much, despite the tougher legislation. There is, however, an interesting shift in the sources people use to download copyrighted movies and music. At an increasing rate the French are using streaming services along with file-hosting ‘cyberlockers’ such as Rapidshare and Megaupload.
This is just one example. The lawsuits have been going on for years and yet filesharing hasn't stopped nor abated.
If you want even more information, look into the Harvard study that was from ~ 3 weeks ago describing filesharing and what's going on with it, "piracy" and the effects it has on touring for artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, I know. I'm saying "hasn't stopped or abated" doesn't automatically translate to "suits did no good whatsoever."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We can look at the EFF for this one. From the very beginning they were to:
1) Recoup money through settlements, making this expensive for filesharers personally
- Note: After a while, they weren't allowed to be given people's ISP numbers and threaten them with lawsuits. Verizon stepped in and made this very difficult for them to do
2) Alter the behavior of filesharers
- Any study of economics tells us that this hasn't happened (and why). Colleges are still a haven for filesharing (depending on where), people still have private networks and people have caught on to alternatives other than the RIAA music such as Jamendro, Magnatune, or Dmusic. As it turns out for every action of the RIAA, there is an equal but opposite reaction.
3) Go after the networks.
Napster wanted to negotiate. The RIAA sued them out of existence. Limewire just changed to a subscription service. Even then, that's still not enough for the RIAA.
4) Sue, sue, sue
The sue em all strategy has worked exactly as they wanted it to. It's lost their parent companies money out the yin yang, no one really wants to work for the RIAA (in terms of artists), they have had a massive layoff, and all in all, this business should have failed a long time ago and yet it's propped up... for what?
Name one good thing that the suits did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm having a hard time following your argument. It's as if you're using a double negative to explain your side of what you think it accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know a 2% margin isn't bad...
The data may be incomplete but I can't see that the margin is changing even with some law firms attempting mass actions in the absence of any decent actions. I'd suggest this is an outgrowth of SLAPP suits so popular in the 70s and 80s.
Mind you if the idea was to stop file sharing then with this return on investment I'd call it a failure too as file sharing is increasing not decreasing.
And not just in the under 30 set either. I base that on the increase I've noticed in this, one way or another, in the 40+ set all the way to people in their 70s. While they aren't as active as the under 30s they're certainly there and that demographic is likely the most price sensitive. Also likely to be the most law abiding provided those laws make a small degree of sense.
Old Boomers never die we just quietly file share while thumbing our noses at da man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're reading that wrong.
Even if your coffee shop is closing, you don't burn the cash - you find a way to close up shop and take as much of it with you as you can.
I mean, seriously - even most of the late 90s dot.commies ("...but we'll make it up on volume") weren't that inefficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're reading that wrong.
How do you know that wasn't the goal all along? The RIAA, like its member organizations, has demonstrated over and over again that they are NOT run by entrepreneurs but by lawyers and accountants. Given the lobbyists they pay for, in many respects much of the legislation passed in the United States over the last fifty years or so can all be lumped as "The Lawyers and Accountants Full Employment Act of 1960 1961 1962 ... 2010."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It ain't a 2% margin. It is a 100% loss.
So, what was the net profit of the RIAA lawsuits? There wasn't one. Instead, there was a net loss of about 62.6 million dollars. There is no net, no margin. Just loss. Pure loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know a 2% margin isn't bad...
It's not a 2% margin. It's a -98% margin.
2% margin would be 2% more than cost. This is 2% *of* the cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know a 2% margin isn't bad...
For reference, a 0% margin is when you get back all of the money that you invested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You know a 2% margin isn't bad...
And not a sight of TAM anywhere. For all of that I was trying to poke some fun at the RIAA and their alleged success rate, not to mention accounting.
Yes, it's a -98% margin which is appalling under any circumstances. Except, it seems, when the RIAA gets into the act or MPAA for that matter. Not many other organizations would try to spin any of this as a positive in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, and I'm sure that is what the RIAA is telling its member companies, that the RIAA didn't waste 64,000,000 over the last few years, but rather brilliantly defeated an imaginary, larger trend of file sharing. And if you buy that logic I have some magic, tiger repelling stones to sell you. I've never been attacked by tigers, so they can't be a waste of money, nor can you **prove** otherwise--which, of course, is why the burden of proof is on the **positive** claimant. If the RIAA wants to claim that sure, file sharing has increased but not as much as it would have without their 64,000,000 dollar plus campaign then the burden of proof is on them--and we know the kind of "proof" the industry has offered in the past about file sharing :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would be Mr. Masnick in this case, as he claimed that this $$$ is not just the cost of educating or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Look, if I'm an RIAA member, the RIAA decision-makers better have a good explanation for why spending this money is/was a good idea. But I'm not. I am a Techdirt reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, sure, you are a **Techdirt reader** NOT and **RIAA member**.
Got it. Saynomore. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh....because 1) its Mike's site and 2) its an open forum for people to contribute whatever they want?
This isnt a journalism site you know, this isnt CNN, the NY Times or whatever, its a
TECH
BLOG
So, you know, opinions and observations and all that. Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still think I need a clue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still think I need a clue?"
Well, since you skipped over #2 and only looked at #1, then yes I would say you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for a burden of proof as yet the RIAA has offered not a scintilla of proof that it does work if what you're looking for is "beyond a reasonable" doubt proof. Lots of opinions but very little of that sort of proof.
As it happens I agree with the bulk of his analysis of the information available at this time. If someone wishes to disprove it it can be the RIAA, you, TAM or anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah...
Why should the Big 3 go through the RIAA for music when the RIAA is the ones leading them into a money pit?
I see your logic in how they're explaining spending this money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, that was easy to refute!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Otherwise, I could just claim that you are not a good person and do not obey kiddie porn laws, and the burden would be on you to prove otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Resembles another enemy of the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Resembles another enemy of the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am thinking so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It should also be pointed out that the RIAA is based in Washington DC... decidedly east of the Rockies. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
* compared to Los Angeles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the rest of us are just out here cause we dig the scenery mostly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
precident LOL
so people have stopped downloading stuff right????
NOPE every time they run there yappy mouths off more MORONS
( see article about morons today) go hey free stuff let me try that...and if you sue 1 out of every one million thats like not gonna work now is it.
POOREST people dont have cash thus you get nothing more and love it. THINK JOE BIDEN yapping off the lil secret hideout of the vice president after he got into office....FURTHER proof they cant just shut up.
NOW that cats out of the bag they cant put it back in too many in every town prolly have a almost copy of everything that would in effect make it impossible to enforce short of hiring half the population as cops and bankrupting every nation on earth.
NOT NOR EVER GONNA HAPPEN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also missing..
I have a special bottle of Champagne in the fridge set aside for the day the RIAA flat lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File Sharing has increased exponentially...
This includes screeners , ripped dvd, and some very good quality cams that have been revised multiple times, hence the r5 label.
It's funny how many people spew numbers or theories that are pure shit without any real world experience. Every service providers DLs vary quite a bit, some throttle some could care less. TWC is my favorite. AT&T does not seem to care either, Cox is just like it's name implies.
Those of you who say it could increased even more are smoking better weed than me, if I can get some popular torrent in 30 min or less and you say it could have possibly been faster, then I guess Santa is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File Sharing has increased exponentially...
Wrong.. r5 stands for region 5. They are usually pre-release dvd rips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File Sharing has increased exponentially...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what happens...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would all you people shut up?
I wonder how long it will take until the RIAA is bankrupt, or at least can't afford their lobbyists. That "fool and his money are soon parted" saying must be in a geologic timeframe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. It's the politicains fault (they won't pass the laws required needed to stop this no matter how much money we throw at them)
2. It's the ISP fault, they won't stop allowing file sharing
3. It's google faults, they links user to file share
4. It's AT&T fault they won't restrict the bandwidth
You see, easy, it's everyone else fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wahhh wahhhh
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
Indirectly, the RIAA is using the artists money to sue their fans, while at the same time denying those same artists payment. What a wonderful company.
If they would have spent that money to innovate, rather than litigate, they would not have to cry like little bitches.
64 million on this lawsuit campaign... which brought in about $1.4 million
How DO you get fired from the RIAA? Must be a union gig.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They really do understand long term profits
Now the ironic thing is this is a clear example of giving up the short term profit to etet the big time profit. What's 64 million now if 5 years from now they start suing people for hundreds of millions and winning.
But lord forbid they apply this strategy to dealing with their customers. Give on something short term to build up brand name and loyalty to get the big pay off down the line in the form of lots of loyal custoers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirates...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"And yet the RIAA bosses are getting raises?"
By the way, wouldn't surprise me if there are kickbacks from these law firms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incomplete Picture
How do you think the record labels have stayed afloat all this time? It is the settlement money that they have not shared much with artists or songwriters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incomplete Picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incomplete Picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incomplete Picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incomplete Picture
Also, her assessment does coincide with what was originally said in the article. Money isn't being created out of thin air. It's being shifted from the artists against their fans in every way. I just believe this is backfiring against the industry since people are becoming more savvy to the game that the Big 3 play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Incomplete Picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incomplete Picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law enforcement is not a business model...
If all it came down too was a profit and loss statement that determined law enforcement. And if it was not "worth it" you would not do it.
Then every murder would go unsolved, as it would cost far more to find the killer than to just let him go.
but fortunately, we live in a society that does not put a price on enforcing and upholding the law.
The law is not a business model, it is a social expense, that we ALL pay for, like insurance. If you break the law, its ME or someone else who has to pay taxes for police to catch you. We all pay for your crime.
Just as we all pay for your insurance fraud, I would rather pay to stop criminals, than to have them run free without risk of being caught,, just because you do not think it is "worth it" to enforce the law.
Thank goodness governments and authorities do not think the same way, putting everyone is basic dollars and cents terms.
When clearly the world does not work that way, but nice spin all the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law enforcement is not a business model...
They are engaging in massive numbers of civil suits, legal threats, name-calling and vote-buying activities. They are taking these actions despite the enormous costs in an attempt to hold back a tide and stop the sun in the sky. This is not "law enforcement". The only thing that is being "enforced and upheld" is the creaking structure of a few meddling groups at the expense of actual law enforcement and citizens, even those citizens that the special interest groups claim to be serving. ("we are making sure our artists get paid" comes from one side of the talking heads while "no checks for you, we decided to keep everything you earned" comes from the other)
And another important note, the way you conflate the actions of a handful of multi-national conglomerate corporations with "governments and authorities" is deeply frightening.
Let us all bow before the capricious big-money overlords and their jack boot enforcers.. remember, infringement is theft And piracy And terrorism And anything else we decide to call it.
Now pay me for the rights to remember this post or we will have to beat it out of your head on the way to PirateTerroristThief Jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What am I (still) missing?
Here's my questions: Why did the Library of Congress-empaneled BRM board set podcast fees so enormously high? What act of congress allows these rates? Was the formation of the federal three-man board even legal? And finally, what interest does the recording industry have in quelling music podcasting, especially when it is so easy to record from an internet stream?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I am glad to see that the people have all gotten on the bandwagon. When law breaking is so big, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. What's good here isn't about breaking the law. But by changing the law. Lawmakers dont like change. They create laws to benefit themselves and not people. It goes all the way back to the olden days when settlers didn't like a law, they didn't follow it. They would even battle with guns to get the lawmakers out of their midst. People always know what they need. What they don't need is greedy assholes telling them what they need. And the government fits those shoes. Once we break down the big guys, we will no longer have to put up with the BS. Just go on about YOUR business without someone looking over your shoulders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]