Posted on 08/15/2008 5:57:07 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
It has been something of a David and Goliath battle, but the first skirmishes in the war on file sharing are over. While the RIAA jubilantly claimed success last year, it is another case that has has now silenced the RIAA, as it avoids drawing attention to the case it never had.
If you read a mainstream media news report about file sharing or talk to a reporter about (illicit) filesharing, you would think that the only case involving the RIAA was Capitol V Thomas, a case that made news nationwide for the size of the fines. However, there are a number of cases going on around the country, cases where the RIAA did not win.
One of the most under-reported is Atlantic V Anderson, which has taken over 3 years from start to finish. The RIAA eventually dropped it with prejudice, meaning they accept the fault was theirs in this case. A similar thing happened in the case against another alleged filesharer, Foster, but both cases were relatively under-reported in mainstream media.
Copyright law, like most other aspects of civil law, allows for the prevailing party to recoup legal fees and costs incurred in the case. This is exactly what Foster and Anderson did, with success. The Foster case was awarded over $68,000 in attorney fees and costs. Likewise, the Anderson case was awarded fees and costs but of a substantially greater amount; $107,834 to be precise, in an order dated July 28th 2008.
It is encouraging to finally hear that last night, the RIAA and the member companies that were involved in the case finally paid the fees (they refused first), putting an end to this protracted legal wrangling. The amount paid was not, however, $107,834 but a figure of $107,951 – a figure which takes into account interest accrued due to delay.
It should be noted that while this is the end of Atlantic V Anderson, it is not the end of Anderson V Atlantic, the case where Ms Anderson is taking her former accusers to task over their practices in this field. It is a heartening victory, and one that is spurring the tide.
So, with Thomas looking to head to a mistrial, making the $222,000 judgment null and void, the two largest decisions in the RIAA’s ‘war on downloading’ have been against them. In both cases the RIAA admitted it was wrong, and ordered to pay the fees.
Thanks to Recording Industry Vs People
I like to bash the RIAA and the artists.
File sharing (stealing) is wrong. What RIAA is doing is much much much worse and should fall under RICO laws IMO.
The good news is CD sales are low and maybe the monopoly in the music industry will die.
No, its not wrong.
While I agree that file sharing may be wrong in as much as a person would download music from someone they don’t know.
I have a problem with the concept that I can’t send a file to a friend and say to him “ dig this”, without it being a copyright violation that could land me in civil court...
I cheer the file sharers on for one simple reason and that is that they are driving music industry profits down. Profits to the record labels AND musicians. Both of whom are grossly over paid and over indulged.
“I have a problem with the concept that I can’t send a file to a friend and say to him “ dig this”, without it being a copyright violation that could land me in civil court...”
The RIAA has sought to control the transfer of all files, not just music files.
Stealing is stealing. The RIAA and music producers know theft quite well, that is how they make money. They steal from artists and from consumers.
“I cheer the file sharers on for one simple reason and that is that they are driving music industry profits down. Profits to the record labels AND musicians. Both of whom are grossly over paid and over indulged.”
I cheer the small file sharers. The grandma, or the kid sharing a couple files. I hate the RIAA gestapo tactics.
Having said that, I understand they are protecting their interests. It’s not for us to decide if the artists or RIAA are overpaid, or underpaid. They offer a product. If we like it, and see the price as fair we buy it. If we don’t like it, or think it’s over priced, we don’t buy it. THAT is what sets the level of compensation.
Stealing is stealing.
Big thieves always get very indignant when little thieves dare cut in on their action.
In that it is disproportionate. What are the royalties worth on a CD? Taking someone's house for shoplifting a lipstick? Tying up the courts with tens or hundreds of thousands of lawsuits betting people will pay $3000 to "settle"? Where is the real piracy here?
The RIAA is in an absolute sense, "right". But when using the barratry form of terror, they lose all moral authority, and deserve death Bad Things.
Keep in mind that the RIAA does not represent any artists at all. It merely represents the recording companies which sign the artists. The RIAA is under no obligation to give any of its collected money to the artists signed by the companies.
People talk about file sharing as “stealing” but isn’t that purely a warped interpretation of what copyrighting was supposed to be about?? I think we need to question this whole issue again; copyrights involve protecting the integrity of a person’s work, don’t they? If I take someone’s music and say I wrote and recorded it, then I would be truly stealing their work. I don’t think it fundamentally has anything to do with keeping a person from sharing something with someone else. Sure, people are getting rich from music but that’s really more of the way the law is construed, and just because it is law doesn’t mean it is ethical or moral.
Maybe I just don’t get it, though...
No, I follow your train of thought. How long before that train gets to the point that we can’t play songs for parties in our homes without permission? Think it can’t happen? Try scheduling a Superbowl party...
True, but if they're going to do that, they lose the right to wrap themselves in the welfare of the artists like they do. There's nothing immoral about defending the interests of a legal business, even a perhaps justifiably unpopular one, but there is something immoral about being dishonest.
Lower CD sales does not necessarily mean lower music sales...
CD sales may be down, but iTunes is the number one retailer of music in this country. Amazon is number two, and has a thriving download service.
FYI. Have a great weekend!
Whats the difference between this and recording songs off the radio with tape player back in the eightys?,This RIAA stuff is extortion pure and simple
Exactly. We used to listen to the radio in the 60’s and record songs onto a reel-to-reel; then in the seventies, we had cassettes and copied whole records onto them so we could play them on our car player. We have been recording movies on VHS for years. Just what is the difference? I cannot fathom this “theft” claim. It is completely nonsensical, in my view.
Your comment made me think how irritated states get when "illegal" lotteries cut into their take or how high tobacco taxes spur smuggled cigarettes and the indignant state goes on a "righteous rage."
I have on many occasions downloaded audio and video more than 30 years old and which is not available for sale by the "rights holder". I feel no pangs of conscience whatever as a result of doing so.
You can go to Amazon right now and buy the complete recordings of Robert Johnson (41 tracks cut for the Vocalion label in the mid thirties) for $22.99. I would sure like to know how much money the Johnson heirs get from each sale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.