Seriously? (More RIAA Insanity)

Feb 28, 07:58 PM

Ok, this is just straight up extortion. The RIAA has set up a website where people being sued by the RIAA can go, enter their case number, and pay a “significant discount” to settle their case without going to court.


Let’s think about this for a second. “Discounted” settlements? I wasn’t aware justice bowed down to capitalism! Second, anyone keeping an eye on the whole copyright/DRM/RIAA debacle knows that many of the recent, high-profile lawsuits brought on by the RIAA have been resulting in rulings that look rather bleak for the RIAA. So then, we must wonder what the RIAA is trying to do here. I think it’s quite simple: by dangling a “discounted settlement” in front of defendants who are likely young, poor college students they get to have their money and…well, they just get their money. It’s nothing more than proof that (1) the RIAA is exaggerating the costs of music piracy on their bottom line if they are willing to give these “discounted settlements” out like Halloween candy, (2) that they know that their basis for these lawsuits is crap, so they are trying to entice people to settle out of court for less money (plus no lawyer fees or time consuming research) instead of them challenging the RIAA in court and possibly bringing to light the truth of the matter, and (3) that they are doing nothing more than extorting people for funds. They aren’t concerned about justice – if they were, this website likely wouldn’t exist. Such an offer is nothing more than an attempt to receive money for as little work as possible: make a few threatening lawsuit letters, send them off to a few random people who in this day and age probably downloaded a song or two at some point in their life, and scare them into paying the “discounted settlement” to avoid lengthy and costly days in court.


It’s insanity, really, and more proof (along side just about anything on the “Pop Charts”) that the mainstream music industry needs to die a quick, painful death. Especially when home recording and distribution are so easy for even the most novice of musicians (who have a few extra $‘s).

— Mark Harrison

,

---

Comments

  1. Dude, anytime you settle out of court it\'s cheaper, and it happens in all types of cases all the time. It\'s the way the system works, and it\'s the way it should work, otherwise the court system would be way too bogged down and it would take lawsuits even longer to be completed. You even mentioned the reason why in your article; there are no attorneys fees or court costs to pay for. So yeah, I think you made a big rant out of a pretty basic fact. Besides, the great majority of the people that are going to use this service probably did in fact violate the law and download music illegally. You can\'t really afford to compete with the RIAA in this, and if you do argue it out successfully in a trial, you\'re legal fees will probably far exceed the cost of this settlement option they are now offering (However, there is probably a good chance the RIAA may be held responsible for the fees, but that’s still another risk). Not to mention all of the time you will have to invest in preparing and waiting for the lawsuit to actually finish. I\'m not saying that everyone accused should concede, for it\'s been reported that the RIAA has accused innocent individuals. If you happen to be one of those, and can actually make a case proving it, then by all means fight it out. But, for the rest of the accused, who I am going to assume did in fact violate the law, this option isn\'t really that bad.

    — The dude · 07.03.01, 03:53 AM · #

  2. the dude:

    Yes, settling out of court is an intended option in the legal system. However, my point is that less internet-savvy people could end up settling when, in reality, they may have done nothing wrong. But they don\'t know this, because they don\'t have the knowledge.


    The other problem is that, feasibly, the RIAA could bring lawsuits against many people whom they have no proof that they actually violated any laws. That is, they don\'t need evidence to initially start the lawsuit - they need only file it. Evidence isn\'t necessary until the actual trial, so it\'s easily possible for them to send out letters that aren\'t backed by good evidence (if you know anything about IP\'s and how \"well\" ISP\'s track them, you know using IP\'s as evidence is crap) so basically they are playing off the idea that everyone is guilty, until proven innocent. This isn\'t how our court system was intended to work. So, while they may be technically in line with the letter of the law, they are most certainly not in line with the actual intend and spirit of it.

    You show this wrong thinking yourself, when you state:
    But, for the rest of the accused, who I am going to assume did in fact violate the law, this option isn’t really that bad.
    this is the mentality of guilty until proven innocent. This is not how our legal system works.

    If you happen to be one of those, and can actually make a case proving it, then by all means fight it out.
    But that\'s the problem, many people won\'t bother to fight it out, because either they don\'t have the knowledge to prove it, the courts don\'t understand the technology behind it, or they just flat out don\'t have the money to support an expensive lawsuit against a company with almost limitless funds when compared to your average consumer.

    They\'re using fear, intimidation, and the assumption of guilt unless proven innocent to take money from people who don\'t have the time or money to prove their innocence. I also just read an article discussing \"pre-lawsuit\" letters that the RIAA plans to start sending out, in conjunction with this new site, so in effect they will be getting people to pay money before they are formally charged with anything:
    Basically, the letter is sent to the college or university, and is then forwarded to the student. Instead of threatening a lawsuit outrightly, within 20 days the student has the option to settle at a \"discount\". The RIAA would not elaborate on how much this discount was.
    This actually makes it much more evident that they are simply trying to get money for nothing - without any solid evidence.

    — mark · 07.03.01, 01:29 PM · #

  3. F**K the RIAA. Bunch of thievin bastards. Maybe the problem isn\'t that the consumers are stealing music; maybe the problem is that hardly any artists actually come out with a CD that\'s worth ~$15 anymore. I\'m not going to pay that much for a CD where I\'m only going to like 2-4 of the 12 songs. They should just be happy that by me downloading their songs they actually get some exposure that they wouldn\'t have received otherwise since I wouldn\'t have spent my hard earned money on that crap in the first place. However, I will point out that if I do, in fact, find a CD or band I really like.. I will support their music and buy it.

    BTW - Pirating music does not put that big of a dent in the music industries sales. It really only takes away a fraction of the total profits. How do you think bands still continue to sell millions of records if SOOOOOO many people are stealing them? Cause it\'s a LIE.

    — Casey · 07.03.01, 04:40 PM · #

  4. Casey: I can understand your points, but despite what my post may imply, I do not think it\'s right to download music that you didn\'t pay for at some point. It\'s still illegal, and people who do it shouldn\'t get upset if they get caught and sued. While the RIAA has no right to sue people without solid evidence (and only in an attempt to extort them), consumers don\'t have the right to obtain music illegally, either.

    — mark · 07.03.01, 06:48 PM · #

  5. Our country obviously has its own recording industry association who, luckily, don\'t have the capacity to get as serious in enforcing their copyrights as the RIAA.

    This kind of action by the RIAA, which mark has correctly called extortion, provides us with yet another reminder of why artists in increasing numbers are turning to the likes of Creative Commons and going the indy route.

    What we need to do as consumers is start supporting open-licensed music and services that charge reasonably. The RIAA is destroying its member companies in current legal on-goings.

    — Simon · 07.03.06, 06:57 AM · #

  6. Creative Commons and the \"indy route\" - I assume referring to the idea of producing albums on independent or self-made labels, not the musical style - is definitely the way to go. As I said, home recording is becoming much easier, and honestly you save much more money buying the necessary tools than paying fees to rent out a studio (at least in the States).

    If you think about it, this is the way a lot of things are moving. People are making money off of blogs, that they host themselves (or at least pay to host themselves) instead of having to get a job as a Journalist working for some big newspaper. This can just as easily apply to the Music industry - people can produce their own albums, and make the money for themselves, avoiding the \"big companies\" that often pressure artists and even ruin careers by putting requirements on creativity. I think a lot of the crap we see today is the result of some big wig saying \"we need this done now, and we need it to sell!\" where the artist had a different plan, a different idea, or maybe didn\'t have the time to do what he/she really wanted.

    Music is about freedom of expression, and you can\'t really express yourself freely with a 10 pound, angry, smelly monkey hanging out on your back - waiting for the next \"phat beat\" that\'ll \"go platinum\".

    — mark · 07.03.06, 04:35 PM · #

  7. Yes, I think \'extortion\' is the correct word for this:
    \'If you don\'t pay us money we will bankrupt you with lawyers fees even if we don\'t have a leg to stand on\'.
    When will your government finally put a stop to this practice of demanding money with menaces? Or are they so deep in the corporations\' pockets that they daren\'t?

    — Alan · 07.03.13, 03:03 AM · #

 
---