RIAA Can't Mass Sue Anymore!

[RZetlin]

U.S. court nixes Net music subpoenas (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/19/music.download.reut/index.html)

In a surprise setback for the recording industry, a U.S. appeals court said Friday its methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law.


I hope that those who supported this law would see why these RIAA tactics are wrong.

The tactics used by the RIAA are too extreme. You don't use a 10 pound hammer to kill ants.

And as these Columbia judges (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20031219/ap_on_en_mu/downloading_music) confirmed, the tactics are unlawful as well.

But the damage has been done. People lives has been destroyed by the RIAA.

For shame.

[SlyBoy]

*sigh of relief*

That should teach the RIAA a BIG lesson.

[Avery]

*does a little dance*

By the way, has anyone heard anything more on the cases of people suing the RIAA for invasion of privacy? What happened there?

[Matthew Williams]

Good.

I feel guilty buying a $20 CD for my sister.

The RIAA needs to pay ifnancially. I will no longer pay anything more than $13 for a CD.

[kiddiesunshine]

Step to the left! Step to the right! Tootsie roll! Butterfly! Uhh! Uhh! Uhh! Uhh! UHH! That's my victory dance.

[tigerrunner]

The tactics used by the RIAA are too extreme. You don't use a 10 pound hammer to kill ants.

...I do.

Anyway, while I do agree the tactics the RIAA were way to extreme, downloading music online is still illegal and all, and some kind of action has to be taken. But not a multi-thousand dollar lawsuit. Something much smaller. Or, better yet, just make music CD's much cheaper. Cut back on artist and big-name producer's profits from them. They'll earn all the money the lost in advertising, anyway.

[Calhoun07]

Good.

I feel guilty buying a $20 CD for my sister.

The RIAA needs to pay ifnancially. I will no longer pay anything more than $13 for a CD.

You're kidding, right? The RIAA will get their share out of the 13.00 CD as well.

[sl4]

You're kidding, right? The RIAA will get their share out of the 13.00 CD as well.

It costs less to mass-produce CDs than it does to mass-produce records. Prices should have dropped like rocks when they switched to CDs, but no, they just kept going up, and up, and up. And, IIRC, less than 5% of profits actually go to the artists. So, yeah, the RIAA will still get their share, but hopefully they'll eventually learn that less people will pirate music if they don't have to hand over $20+ for it, most of which is just going towards RIAA executives.

[BabySealClubber]

I agree with Thrax. This means very little as the RIAA often has its moles sit on Kazaa and other file-swapping sites just waiting for people to d/l popular songs and then record their IP address. Sure you can use a proxy but their on a "fish with hand granades" tangent and feel that since they were unwilling to create a reasonable online format in the beginning and are still unwilling to confront the desire the public has for obtaining music fast, the best thing to do is attack their consumers.

On another thread someone asked who's eviler. Well, now you know.

[RZetlin]

the new, legal Napster (http://www.napster.com/)
Musicmatch Downloads (http://www.musicmatch.com/download/music_intro.htm?os=pc)
iTunes Music Store (http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/)
Walmart.com Music Downloads (http://musicdownloads.walmart.com/)
BuyMusic.com (http://www.buymusic.com/)

99¢ for most individual tracks. $9.99 for most albums, regardless of the number of tracks. The RIAA isn't being reasonable excuse doesn't work anymore.

So which music service have you used so far Thrax?


This means nothing. The only difference is that the RIAA won't get the names of the people its suing until after it files its lawsuits.

Assume that this ruling will be appealed.


Well it means the RIAA can't mass subpoena everybody now.

The RIAA have to go through the whole court process which takes time and money.

[Pilmedium]

The RIAA will get their share out of the 13.00 CD as well.

Obviously, they would get less money in terms of actual amounts from a $13 CD than they would from a $20 CD.

Well it means the RIAA can't mass subpoena everybody now.

The RIAA have to go through the whole court process which takes time and money.

Therefore, they will not be able to go after everyone who downloads illegally. That makes the most sense for now, because one law cannot be violated to enforce another law. That is exactly what they were doing. I somehow doubt that lowering CD prices would stop most of the people who download music.

[atf487]

Paying for COMPRESSED music won't really solve the problem. Although I do like napster's premium plan, most of these really don't give you anything over downloading music of kazaa or something. Same bitrate, only costs more.

I have a great indie store in my area, so it really doesn't concern me, but I still hate the RIAA...

[sl4]

Paying for COMPRESSED music won't really solve the problem. Although I do like napster's premium plan, most of these really don't give you anything over downloading music of kazaa or something. Same bitrate, only costs more.

Wrongo, pal.

iTunes Music Store uses AAC (Advanced Audio Compression) files, not MP3s. AAC's are a form of the MPEG-4 format. In other words, higher sound quality with a lower bitrate. But in Napster's case, you're correct.

[Calhoun07]

Obviously, they would get less money in terms of actual amounts from a $13 CD than they would from a $20 CD.



I think my point was missed. Or maybe I missed a point. I don't understand, if you are against the RIAA, why you would want to buy any music at all on CD, regardless of price. Buying their product will only serve to help them. People should BOYCOTT their product and send them a stern message that we won't tolerate being bullied because we file share. Matthew Williams originally said that RIAA should pay for this, and I took that as they should have to suffer finaciallly because of what they have done. It's absurd to think that because you buy a CD for 13.00 that they are somehow going to feel the penalty of that over a CD that is priced at 20.00. The likely result of you passing up a 20.00 CD and finding it elsewhere for 13.00 will result in only one thing: The RIAA will STILL GET THEIR MONEY off that CD just the same as if it sold for 20.00.

Let me explain with something I know and love: DVDs. If you see a new DVD at Best Buy for 14.99 and Suncoast is selling it for 22.99, whom does the studio make the most money off of? If you said it's the same at each store, come to the front of the class and get a cookie. Best Buy is selling that DVD for 14.99 as what is called a "loss leader." That means they paid 20.00 for it, they have to give the studio the same amount of money for it, but instead of making a dollar or two off the sale, they cut their price, take the loss, and hope you buy something they make more money on while you are there. CDs at many major chains are also loss leaders, which is why smaller record stores sell them for 20.00. That CD cost Best Buy the same as it did the smaller store, trust me. Because you get it for 13.00 at whereever, and you saw it for 20.00 at another store, guess what? The RIAA still got their same cut out of that CD.

BOYCOTTING IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL WORK.

[wrenchien]

but i just started collecting paid-for movies on dvd! with MONEY!!! now you say ya might not be mass sued or stalked if you .. decided to be a pirate, arr?

scalawags! off the plank! :evil:

[wrenchien]

i think this will hopefully be an embarrassment to them, in realizing to chase those above the law, you can't be above the law yourself without being somehow against the law in the end.

and if i ever get that napster thing from a store, they'd better have some disco on there i REMEMBER. mmm.