RIAA Loses In Court!!

Good!

Interesting read...

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I feel sorry for artists on the breadline who might lose out because everybody the RIAA sues now will simply say "my PC did it not me" but have no sympathy for the lawyers who've made an absolute fortune out of others' misery

A

I feel sorry for artists on the breadline who might lose out because everybody the RIAA sues now will simply say "my PC did it not me" but have no sympathy for the lawyers who've made an absolute fortune out of others' misery

A

That's my biggest problem with them, too! I bet the lawyers have cost the artists much more by filing these outrageous lawsuits that cost major money to track down the "illegal" downloaders, then take them to court with a team of lawyers than they have lost through the downloads. I mean, how many manhours did it take for them to track down that teenaged girl in order to sue her? And, those are now wasted manhours since the ruling against her is about to be overturned. Then, there's the court costs and the lawyers fees on top of those manhours that are now moot as well. But, the lawyers get to keep the money they made going to court even though the ruling will be overturned. Just wasted time and money.

I feel sorry for artists on the breadline who might lose out because everybody the RIAA sues now will simply say "my PC did it not me" but have no sympathy for the lawyers who've made an absolute fortune out of others' misery

A

That's my biggest problem with them, too! I bet the lawyers have cost the artists much more by filing these outrageous lawsuits that cost major money to track down the "illegal" downloaders, then take them to court with a team of lawyers than they have lost through the downloads. I mean, how many manhours did it take for them to track down that teenaged girl in order to sue her? And, those are now wasted manhours since the ruling against her is about to be overturned. Then, there's the court costs and the lawyers fees on top of those manhours that are now moot as well. But, the lawyers get to keep the money they made going to court even though the ruling will be overturned. Just wasted time and money.

ruining peoples lives because you can afford to exploit "grey areas" within badly written, out of context, or outright obsolete "laws" should get you an express ticket to a special hell.

read this, even tho it's a few years old it still sums up pretty well why these cases shouldn't even be brought before a judge.
(imo)
http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/08/07/the-riaa-vs-john-doe-a-laypersons-guide-to-filesharing-lawsui/

I don't know maybe because I'm not an artist I don't see the big harm in it, but to me I think most of the people if they didn't download them for free wouldn't have bought them anyway so what did they really lose, plus if you download an artists music and share it with your friends who's to say those "new" fans now that they've heard of the artist start going to concerts etc.

I don't think it's as simple as if you download for free your ripping off the artist. There's alot more to the equation than that. How many free copies of records do the labels distribute in the first place?

I say if it's out there download it.

All's well that ends well.

I bet the lawyers have cost the artists much more by filing these outrageous lawsuits that cost major money to track down the "illegal" downloaders, then take them to court with a team of lawyers than they have lost through the downloads.Keep in mind, the lawyers weren't the ones who decided to cost the artists this outrageous amount of money - it was the RIAA that made that decision. Yes, the lawyers got the money, but the people who were supposed to be representing the artists' interests are the ones who wasted it by hiring lawyers to push lawsuits instead of trying to find a business model that works in a changing economy.

Better yet, most artists don't see this as helping them. The artists are making their money off of concerts and live shows. Only the labels are getting rich off of sales of the music.

I think cnev hit it spot on.
I know this guy, who knows this guy, who's best friend knows of somone's uncle, it's not me, that downloaded songs over the net. This guy says, that he would not have purchased the music. Ever. But,, since he's been exposed to the music, he's gone to see some of the artists and has supported them in other ways.

I can remember back in the cassette days. We would trade tapes like crazy. I wound up with one that started it's journey in California (I'm on the right coast). We had a pretty good underground thing going on there for a while. Its how I came to know about Metalica, early on. I got my hands on that tape, not knowing who the heck they were (they were relatively unknown atthe time) and whammo, Never heard THAT sound before!! Was a cool experience.

Then they started sueing everyone over their music...too bad for them. I don't listen to mainstream stuff anyways. Thank God for Pandora is all I can say.

I think downloading music is probably better for most bands than even they realize. The people that are getting hurt are the exact people I wouldn't want one cent of my money going to in the first place.

And FrankyL in his post talked about something I always beleived anyway that the bands are making money on concerts, live shows, etc. the ones making money on the CD's are the labels who's sole purpose is to screw the bands over anyway.

You know, from my own experience, I have to say that, when I have downloaded, (Yes, I admit it!), I usually wind up buying the CD anyway. And, I've bought CD's that I would not have otherwise bought had I not heard the music first by downloading it!

Same here.
They get twice the money from me because I pay for my downloads and then I end up buying the whole CD anyway.

I have to say, I work at a law firm (most lawyers I know are actually very good people who deserve to get paid for the hundreds of hours they put in working on a case) and judging by the costs of litigation, I can be pretty sure that the recording industry is actually losing money by taking people like this to court. They can't possibly be recouping the legal fees with any judgments they may get in their favor, which after reading that article, looks like it will be very few. They really should try harder to come up with a solution to the problem that doesn't involve suing everyone.

Same here.
They get twice the money from me because I pay for my downloads and then I end up buying the whole CD anyway.

I have to say, I work at a law firm (most lawyers I know are actually very good people who deserve to get paid for the hundreds of hours they put in working on a case) and judging by the costs of litigation, I can be pretty sure that the recording industry is actually losing money by taking people like this to court. They can't possibly be recouping the legal fees with any judgments they may get in their favor, which after reading that article, looks like it will be very few. They really should try harder to come up with a solution to the problem that doesn't involve suing everyone.

I'm sure the RIAA passes the litigation expenses (probably with a mark-up) directly to its member record companies. But in the end, $$$ from judgement are not likely the goal. Increased sales to 2-scared-2-share music fans would be the real RIAA/record companies win.

But this case is interesting. It's really a case of ignorance winning over greed -- but only because the law states the sharing must be intentional.

(and I'm sure most lawyers are absolutely delightful persons -- once defanged and fitted with very long-sleeved white jackets. :wink: )