Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

280 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ya know... (4, Funny)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | more than 10 years ago | (#8350983)

It would be really sad if being slashdotted costs more than the $13.86 check. I mean, the image of the letter alone is 50k, and it didn't have to be. I hope you have a flat rate, no cap on bandwidth. Course, it's smart to have those Amazon referrer links. Good luck with that. Kind of hypocritical. "Hey, look at my RIAA settlement...now buy some music."(fp)

Re:Ya know... (4, Funny)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351019)

Buying overpriced CDs for years ($1,306.19)
Sticking it to the RIAA (-$13.86)

Getting a Slashdot-induced bandwidth bill of $3,000: Priceless.

Way to go.

Re:Ya know... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351077)

Some better punchlines:

Making fun of people's misfortune...priceless.

-or-

Karma whoring...priceless.

Re:Ya know... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351033)

If you're going to make a kilobyte of black text on white into a 50K image, you deserve every cent of the bandwidth bill.

Fortress Washingon DC (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351173)

Security Efforts Turning Capital Into Armed Camp [nytimes.com]

The terrorists have won.

MY DICK IS HUGE! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351334)

Re:MY DICK IS HUGE! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351462)

Is that so... stud?

Mail me. You know where. I need that hot throbbing cock of yours between my legs tonight.

mine was empty (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8350986)

Empty [coattails.net]

FIRST POST! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8350987)

in the name of NSDAP! 14/88

Crap! (0, Offtopic)

musingmelpomene (703985) | more than 10 years ago | (#8350988)

And my mail's not being forwarded. I could have used that to buy food. *grumble* Looks like ramen tonight!

Re:Crap! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8350998)

Hey, everybody loves ramen...right?

MOD Parent UP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351206)

Best joke I have seen all day.

Re:Crap! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351325)

LOL! Nice joke.

I like your style!

Want2cyber? Mail me... you know where.

-Musingmelpomene

Re:Crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351584)

Apparently not the slashdot moderators.

For once... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8350991)

we are thanking the RIAA?


Sizzly [sizzly.com]

Re:For once... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351050)

would you thank someone if you were unknowingly (to you) over-charged for something, and then as penance, the seller offered a fraction of what they wrongly took from you?

"thanks" aren't in order, unless it's in the form of "thanks for the memories - i can think of one conglomerate that will no longer get any of my money."

Super! (5, Insightful)

cflorio (604840) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351000)

Does that $13 check really make up for price fixing on hundreds of CD's that you've purchased over the years (I know it's hundreds for me at least)... It should be $3000 each like they are trying to get from us!!!

Re:Super! (5, Insightful)

knownzero (571410) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351028)

I hear that. Well, the lawyers got enough to cover their entire cd collections worth of overpricing, and that's all that matters nowadays isn't it?

Re:Super! (2, Funny)

fermion (181285) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351247)

In the olden days we didna need no stinkin lawya. When a man crossed us we challanged him to duel. Problem one, the rich mothas would hire profesionas. We coudna hire no one, so we would send our best out, and pray he didna die, which he usualy did. When we were real angy, we just plant a bomb at the rich mothas house.

Re:Super! (1, Insightful)

doormat (63648) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351045)

You mean people still buy CDs?

Seriously, over the time period this lawsuit is addressing, I bought about 10 CDs a year. If they inflated the price $1.50 per CD, then its almost right. Yes, it screws over the people who bought a ton of CDs, as more of their money was taken by the industry, whereas if you only bought 1 CD, you more or less got that CD for free. But there is no logistical way they could ask you how many CDs you bought and adjusted it for that, and be able to verify it.

Re:Super! (2, Insightful)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351062)

it does for the lawyer who got 50 % of the procedes.

Re:Super! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351084)

If you were stupid enough to buy hundreds of overpriced CD, then you only deserve $13.86.

Um (5, Insightful)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351097)

You agreed to pay the price. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to buy those CDs.

I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.

But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.

As it is, they're giving you a check based on the average overcharge. People who only bought a CD or two are getting the same amount as people who bought dozens or hundreds of CDs.

There's no way the RIAA is going to count reciepts for everyone that requested a check and give proportionatly the same to everyone. Do you even have reciepts for all those CDs to prove you bought them and when you bought them?

It's just a lot easier to divide the entire fine by everyone who requested compensation and give equal size checks to everyone regardless of how much they spent.

And this is perfectly reasonable since nobody forced you to buy any of those CDs. If you're mad about how much you pay for CDs, buy them used. Use that check to buy used CDs so that none of the money goes back to the RIAA. And then stop buying new CDs.

Ben

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351266)

until the RIAA gets used CD stores to go byebye, they are already working on that.

Re:Um (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351588)

" You agreed to pay the price. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to buy those CDs.

I'd agree they'd owe us more if they were selling something necessary like food or fuel products.

But they're not. They're selling luxeries. Things you don't need.
"

irrelevant. They where caught doing something wrong, and are being punished. The fact that is a luxary item don't enter into it.

"As it is, they're giving you a check based on the average overcharge. People who only bought a CD or two are getting the same amount as people who bought dozens or hundreds of CDs.
"
and this is right, why?

"There's no way the RIAA is going to count reciepts for everyone that requested a check and give proportionatly the same to everyone. Do you even have reciepts for all those CDs to prove you bought them and when you bought them?"

yes they could, they just don't want to. I have prrof of purchase for many of mine, on my credit card statments.

"It's just a lot easier to divide the entire fine by everyone who requested compensation and give equal size checks to everyone regardless of how much they spent."

yes, but so?

"And this is perfectly reasonable since nobody forced you to buy any of those CDs. If you're mad about how much you pay for CDs, buy them used. Use that check to buy used CDs so that none of the money goes back to the RIAA. And then stop buying new CDs."

true, but they where price fixing, and how is the consumer suppos to know that they weren't purchasing in a true competitive market?

Re:Um (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351597)

Way to go. I agree. Lets take the anti trust garbage off of everything that isn't needed. So, would that include clothes? How about a Coke? No one is making you buy a Coke. Indeed how about Cigarettes. Lets bring them back. No one is holding a gun to anyone to make people buy them. How about bottled water - tap water is just fine.


The point is that they have gotten away with charging us a LOT more than the CD costs and a LOT more profit than a tape brings in for years. I have hundreds of CD's that have been purchased in the past 15-20 years when they came out. We were told the price would come down as they were accepted, as low as $1/cd because the are so small and easy to make. Yea right. Instead we have been taken to the cleaners. They should have sued for so much money it would put the RIAA out of business. Maybe the settlement is why they have been hitting up little kids for money (laugh)?

Re:Super! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351113)

I agree, ideally, we should be compensated an appopriate amount for the amount of money we spent. I own a collection of about 500 CDs, and MOST were bought during the early to mid 90's.

I *SHOULD* be compensated a LOT more than $14. But I don't really have any proof when I bought the CDs. I don't agree that somebody, like my Mother, who has bought a grand total of about 10 CDs in her life should receive a $3000 settlement however.

How do you manage that discrepancy? I just don't know.

Anyway, I stopped buying CDs a long time ago. I didn't stop buying them because of MP3s, I stopped buying them because of their cost, and the fact that most of them suck. I stopped buying LONG before MP3s became mainstream.

Hell, I've bought more CDs in the last few years from bands who I discoverred because of MP3s than I did in the few years before MP3s. The best part: most of the bands are NOT on mainstream labels.

I'm happy. I have a good collection of music, I paid for most of it legitimately, and I'm not supporting the RIAA. Too bad everybody else can't be in the same position.

Re:Super! (2, Funny)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351312)

It should be $3000 each like they are trying to get from us!!!
If they are counting each copied CD at $150.000, the we should too! $150.000 for each overpriced CD you bought, woo hoo!

Re:Super! (1)

allism (457899) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351412)

You had the option to opt out of the class and file your own suit, you know...Nobody forced you to join the class action.

Let's see... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351006)

$9.99 CD.... Plus tax... Your total is $13.86. We, the RIAA, will keep this check we were going to send you and call it even.

Blogzine.net [blogzine.net]

Minor quibble (-1, Flamebait)

EggplantMan (549708) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351218)

Why is it that nobody in this damned forum knows how to spell cheque correctly? 'Check' is for 'checkmark' or 'checkpoint', or 'let me check that,' but it is specifically not the little piece of paper used to transfer funds between people. Get it fucking straight already.

Re:Minor quibble (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351259)

Because most of the world speaks English not DumbassIsh (aka British English)

Re:Minor quibble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351270)

The American way of spelling cheque is check.

Sorry (0, Offtopic)

Joe U (443617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351274)

Miriam-Websters defines the following:

CHEQUE chiefly British variant of CHECK

CHECK noun
a written order directing a bank to pay money as instructed.

Internic.net defines the following:

Domain Name:SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrant Country:US

The correct spelling (by the editors) is 'check'. If, however, the user resides in the UK, then 'cheque' would be acceptable.

Re:Minor quibble [OT] (1)

cubic6 (650758) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351302)

It's not the forum. My little book of papers that I write people's names on and sign to give them money says "Checkbook" on it, the box I get the papers in says they're "Checks", and the papers themselves say "Check" several times. It's called an Americanism, which isn't surprising considering you're visiting a chiefly American run web site. Similarly, we say "color" instead of "colour", "flavor" instead of "flavour", and "television" instead of "telly".

In... (-1)

slackingme (690217) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351016)

In Soviet Russia, RIAA pays YOU!

Oh.. why can't I get modded up?

No admision of guilt (5, Insightful)

PktLoss (647983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351022)

I like how the letter doesn't admit fault.

Its just the 'challenged' pricing policies, rather than any of the stronger language that could have been used like 'illegal price fixing pricing policies'.

Re:No admision of guilt (4, Insightful)

mesach (191869) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351166)

Now I don't know law, I'm not a lawyer(obviously) but since they have been found GUILTY of price fixing, and by admission have sent out checks to people, and the prices of CD's STILL haven't fallen down.

Can we bring some sort of lawsuit against them?

Is the sending of the checks some sort of "get away with it forever now that we have paid some people money for our indescretion" card?

Re:No admision of guilt (1)

lvdrproject (626577) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351566)

What's to admit? The letter was written by the counsel for the plaintiff(s), i.e., the people suing the RIAA. :/

Sadly (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351023)

That's not even enough to buy some new CD's. Guess I'll just have to spend it on alcohol!

Nice! (4, Funny)

dswensen (252552) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351026)

Hey, with that money, you could almost buy yourself a new CD!

Oh, wait...

A Modest Proposal. (4, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351257)

May I make a suggestion?

$13.86 isn't enough for a new CD from many stores, but you could use the money to buy an album from one of the many excellent artists from non-RIAA record labels such as Matador or Ninja Tune available from the iTunes Music Store [apple.com] .

Or perhaps purchase music for download in unencumbered MP3 format directly from non-RIAA record label Warp Records [warprecords.com] .

$10 thrown at the first option could get you, if you like rock music, one of the Yo La Tengo albums (if you like rock), Cat Power's "Moon Pix" album (if you like folky rock sung by a drunk manic-depressive woman), or Amon Tobin's "Supermodified" (if you like jazzy d&b-ish techno), and still leave you $3.86 for your own nefarious purposes. Any of these would be excellent choices.

From the second option, if you like electronica, $13.86 would be just enough to neatly buy Boards of Canada's probably-career-high Music Has the Right to Children album plus Autechre's probably-career-high gantz_graf EP and leave you enough money for a soda at a vending machine.

Now Go Out... (5, Insightful)

vontrotsky (667853) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351027)

... and spend that $13 on an a CD from an independant lable.

Re:Now Go Out... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351049)

Why buy a CD at all? You can download everything for free.

Re:Now Go Out... (1)

0WaitState (231806) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351096)

start here: cd baby [cdbaby.com]

Re:Now Go Out... (2, Insightful)

chunderfest (755217) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351240)

...or donate it to Daniel Peng's fund [arbornet.org] to help reimburse him for being sued by the RIAA in April 2003, costing him his $15,000 total life's savings (and legal fees on top of that). He's still down many thousand$.

I donated last summer.

---

Re:Now Go Out... (0)

Zelet (515452) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351277)

Yeah, but I gave at work... sorry.

Re:Now Go Out... (2, Informative)

Stallmanite (752733) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351309)

Be careful. Sometimes "independent" labels are just fronts for larger labels.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership

Re:Now Go Out... (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351639)

Name one.

wow (4, Interesting)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351029)

LABELS: Capitol Records, Inc d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc, and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp, WEA, Inc, Warner Music Group, Inc, Warner Bros Records, Inc, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc, and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc, and UMG Recordings, Inc; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc and BMG Music; and, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.

RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.

when you take all of those together, and divide 70 million or so between them, it's not as hard as a blow as we thought it was... (score +1, interesting)

on a side note, did this really need a second story (score -1, troll)

Your blog?! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351035)

Are you asking to be ./ -ed.

Re:Your blog?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351305)

its /. not ./

Score 1 for the consumer! (4, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351042)

Or rather, score $13.86 for the consumer.

The score now stands at:

The consumer: $13.86
The RIAA: $33,000,000,000

Looks like the RIAA's in real trouble now!

Re:Score 1 for the consumer! (4, Insightful)

zurab (188064) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351246)

Absolutely right. RIAA strategy has been:

- violate laws (anti-competitive/price-fixing/accounting/privacy/ etc.)
- get sued
- pay fines
- continue doing exactly the same as before

Violating laws is a minor cost of doing business only while associated fines are cheaper than purchasing new, more favorable laws. Score 1 consumer, sure! I didn't know RIAA was submitting stories to Slashdot!

I'm gonna buy.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351043)

blank cd-r's with my check. If I wait for the right deal, I should be able to 100 for 13 bucks.

Re:I'm gonna buy.... (3, Insightful)

lambent (234167) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351367)


And a sizeable percentage of your 14-cent CD-Rs will go bad within a year.

I learned my lesson with uber-discount blanks. There's a reason why they couldn't sell them at higher prices.

Re:I'm gonna buy.... (1)

stwrtpj (518864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351615)

While I know you were most likely trying to be funny, realize that part of the money that you spend on a CD-R goes right to the RIAA again. This is in effect a "piracy tax" that the industry managed to get placed on recordable media such as the CD-R, supposedly to cover the cost of potential losses from the piracy that some users of the media may do.

RIAA (2, Interesting)

sparklingfruit (736978) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351044)

While P2P and HTTP may be excellent ways of file sharing, for better or for worse, the RIAA _will_ stop them. Right now they have attacked legally, which is leading P2P developers to make some advancements in the way of encryption, anonymity, etc. The RIAA seems to realize, now, that there really is no way to stop technology. We have already won.

Now they are taking the overused advice of "adopt a new business model", which seems to be services such as Apple's iTunes Music Store, BuyMusic.com , Rhapsody, and soon Roxio Napster 2.0.

The new RIAA attack plan is to offer B2P services. The problem? DRM. If I buy a CD from iTMS, for example, it may be $9.99. I would buy the same CD in store for $14.99. No, I'm NOT paying five bucks for the album art, professionally burned CD, etc. I'm paying for the right to do with it what I want. There's something about having "SOMETHING" in your hands. They can't take that away from you, like they can with digital music.

P2P for me is a way of sampling music before buying the CD. This will never be replaced by a $0.99 deal, since I like to download it, and listen to the song throughout the day. At work I listen to different music than at home. At night, different music from the day. Walking music is different from sittin' or driving music. Rhapsody fails here, so does iTMS... you can only sample certain portions, while in front of your computer. It's not the same.

Why P2P is better than HTTP? It's easier. More people use it, than HTTP was used for MP3 trading. Does it matter? No, B2P will overtake them both. There IS a large number of people who ONLY want digital music, that's why they turn to P2P. These people will turn to B2P once it becomes "mainstream."

For the most part the RIAA doesn't have to do legal battles any more (though it is a nice source of income), they can attack it by offering new online services, just as EVERYONE has been saying for years. Me, I'll stick to brick and mortar, and P2P though.

Re:RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351139)

Newsflash, P2P uses HTTP (Gnutella1/2), you buzzword bullshit artist.

Ha (4, Funny)

djenvee (587484) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351058)

Score 1 for the consumer!" And score 1000000 for the lawyers!

Donate it to EFF! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351066)

.

I'm putting this in anonymously because suggesting to donate to EFF is a great thing, but also a karma whore move.

So anyway, get yourself over to the EFF donate page and give them the money [eff.org] . It's quick and painless.

.

Re:Donate it to EFF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351175)

I agree. Was waiting for someone to say that....

Article Text & Letter Text (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351074)

My check from the RIAA... Confused yet?

My being part of a class action law suit paid off. This morning I received my portion of the settlement made due to the Compact Disk Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. I filed a claim to be part of this class action suit about a year or so ago... anyone having purchased a Music CD between Jan1st, 1995 and December 22nd, 2000 was eligible to redeem part of this settlement. Surprisingly, I was part of this demographic since I will on occasion purchase certain artist's CD's whom I deem worthy of my entertainment dollar.

This is essentially my being reimbursed for the financial damages I suffered as a music CD purchaser during a time when CD pricing policy was overwhelmingly unfair to the consumer. I received approximately $14.00 as restitution from both record companies and music retailers. These companies and retailers where indicted for violations of the Sherman Act which works to prevent companies from engaging in shady business practices... in this case price fixing. The defendants attempted to exploit their MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) policies to cheat the consumer. The willingness of the defendants to settle with plaintiffs (that's me) with a significant pay out, $14.00 of which will be deposited in MY bank account, more than confirms their guilt.

Here is a list of the defendants (that restitution... these are the guys supplying it):

LABELS: Capitol Records, Inc d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc, and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp, WEA, Inc, Warner Music Group, Inc, Warner Bros Records, Inc, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc, and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc, and UMG Recordings, Inc; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc and BMG Music; and, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.

RETAILERS: MTS, Inc d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp, and Trans World Entertainment Corp.

This victory, though not a MAJOR blow to these giant conglomerates, does feel good at time when music lovers are being actively hunted and sued for copyright infringement by the RIAA. I will more than likely use a portion of my settlement to invest in what I consider a legitimate and fair business model --- iTunes. If the RIAA had jumped on the legitimate internet distribution band wagon instead of conspiring to rob the consumer with their aging CD business model through price fixing, maybe they wouldn't be up to their ears in legal fees these days.

My thanks go out to the legal teams and active citizens who were instrumental in the success of this litigation... score one for the consumer (there is a statement you don't hear much anymore).

Here is a scan of the letter I received from the legal team representing the plaintiffs... though I'm still waiting for my personal letter of apology from the RIAA... but I'm not holding my breath. My check was attached to the bottom of this letter, but is not pictured here for obvious reasons...

*****

February, 2004

Dear New Jersey Music Purchaser:

As Lead Counsel for the Private Class Plaintiffs, we are pleased to enclose payment for your claim in the settlement of the Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. This lawsuit was brought by the Attorneys General of 43 states and three territories and by counsel for PRivate Class Plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of music CDs. In accordance with the terms of the court-approved settlement, payment is being made to music purchasers who filed a valid and timely claim.

Whether you filed your claim online at the settlement web site, www.MusicCDSettlement.com, or by mail, the attached payment represents full payment of your portion of the Settlement. Please note that the attached payment instrument must be cashed by May 20, 2004.

It is a pleasure to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion and to return value to consumers who purchased CDs while the challenged pricing policies were in effect.

Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C.

*****

Want to Know More? Here are some links...

http://www.musiccdsettlement.com
http://www.itu nes.com
http://www.eff.org

and yet... (0, Redundant)

snakattak (592921) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351080)

Wheres mine?

Re:and yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351368)

You,?
hmm, yeeess, We will be sending you a letter as well.
It has, however, a whole different proposal.

the real $$ flow (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351081)

as you drool over your measly 13 bucks, how much did the lawyer$ take home? class-action lawsuits are all the rave now and make $$ mostly for them. similar to micro$oft type settlements where the plaintaifs get a *free* copy of something from M$ and the lawyer$ get cost$, fee$, and other itemization$ paid for. no one wins here but the lawyer$.

now....go get ya a burger.

Score 1 for the consumer???? (4, Insightful)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351085)

Score 1 for the consumer!

Are you NUTS? The consumer got completely SCREWED on this deal. The ONLY winners here with the record labels who took in BILLIONS in extra profit because of ILLEGAL price fixing and all the consumers got back was a tiny percentage.

Score 1 my ass!

-S

Re:Score 1 for the consumer???? (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351118)

The lawyers also hit the jackpot.

Re:Score 1 for the consumer???? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351167)

You know, I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but if you got screwed on the price of a CD it's because you chose to buy it. You could not buy CDs, buy from independent artists, or buy used CDs and you wouldn't have gotten screwed and your life would go on and you wouldn't be supporting the companies which you so obviously hate. Think about it, you're giving money to your oppressors all because you want the gratification of listening so some particular schmuck who was raked into giving away their rights as artists so they'd have a chance at the big time. [Throughout that paragraph I mean "you" to be referring to a hypothetical customer of the RIAA's products.]

The main good thing to come of this is that now we can more legitimately refer to the RIAA as a cartel. I'd like to see some legal confirmation that the RIAA is a collusive monopoly, as that is how I refer to them in private conversation but I don't think I can use the term in public protest without fear of libel.

Re:Score 1 for the consumer???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351415)

What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

I think that would be, obviously, the word "shall"...

Re:Score 1 for the consumer???? (0)

Jediman1138 (680354) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351663)

This marks the first time the words "nuts" and "screwed" were posted in CAPS on the comment on Slashdot. Score 1 for the pervert!

Why not send it to a fund to help RIAA victims. (4, Insightful)

Graemee (524726) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351100)

Since $13 bucks is only enough for a McRottens lunch, why not donate it to a fund to help against the RIAA. Slashdotters can be free to give it to whom they please. Suggestions?

Re:Why not send it to a fund to help RIAA victims. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351136)

How about a legal fund?

EFF, or someone who *might* be able to do something about these jokers.

Re:Why not send it to a fund to help RIAA victims. (1)

spanklin (710953) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351535)

Ummm... since when does lunch cost $13 at McDonalds? I haven't been in one in years, but I can't imagine that it costs much more than the $3 it used to cost for a burger & fries.

Personally, I'm going to invest my $13 in Paulaner hefeweizen.

How much for JUST the rights to listen? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351106)

I don't know about you, but I JUST want the right to download the song, no service from anyone. I was considering this before when I saw tapes in a record store. If the tape costs $10, and the CD costs $15, am I legally in the right to buy the tape, then download the tracks of the CD, and burn them to CD? Presumably some of the money spent on the tape goes to the actual production of the tape, so how much does it cost for just the right to listen?

This new 'legitimate' downloading helps answer this, kind of. I'll use iTunes as an example.

It costs $0.99 per song to download from a 'legitimate' music service.

$0.33 go to Apple for their storing and serving the song. $0.66 go to the record label.

My question is: Will they ever sell "licenses" to download songs at $0.66/song, and let you obtain the song however you please? (p2p)

The Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351207)

My question is: Will they ever sell "licenses" to download songs at $0.66/song, and let you obtain the song however you please? (p2p)

No.

Re:How much for JUST the rights to listen? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351226)

According to copyright law, you're paying for the right to make a copy, not for the right to listen.

For example, each household on a block could buy one CD each, and make the deal that each day, you give the CD you have to your right neighbor (and receive one from your left neighbor). Assuming 50 households on the block, you get to listen to 50 CDs over 50 days for the price of one. Legally.

Re:How much for JUST the rights to listen? (1)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351532)

According to copyright law, you're paying for the right to make a copy, not for the right to listen.

I think it's more complicated than that. You cannot take your copy, that you purchased and legally own, and play it for a large audience though there is no further copying involved.

The real loser here is the public, no really (5, Insightful)

oboylet (660310) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351142)

If there were enough co-complaintants, the RIAA would have sent this money to fund public music programs.

Not enough people signed on, indicating (1) not enough people were aware of their rights, (2) not enough people cared, or more likely (3) not enough people understand just how evil the RIAA is.

I'll be getting a check, and I know what I should do with it -- give it to a local school.

Re:The real loser here is the public, no really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351170)

Hey great, they can probably use that check to pay a teacher's salary for a day!

Re:The real loser here is the public, no really (3, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351456)

Or (4) - lots of people understand that class actions really don't punish the offender to any great degree, and the lawyers are the only ones that really get anything out of it.

Fines don't seem to do anything to curb bad corporate behavior - I don't think we'll see any real reform until the courts start revoking charters.

No Joke (0, Troll)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351155)

I know of one person who received such a check. If I heard it right... this person tried to cash the check and it bounced.

moD down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351176)

Let's keep to clear she couldn't as little overhead percent of the *BSD [tuxedo.org], Said one FreeBSD in a head spiining

I got my $70 160GB HD Rebate today! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351216)

Take that OfficeMax! Scans of the check stub can be found in my blog.

Jesus (1, Interesting)

cjpez (148000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351236)

I hate hearing about that damned settlement. CDs are luxury items, and as such they're worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. Obviously however much you've been paying for CDs is all right for you, otherwise you wouldn't be buying the CDs. That's why I haven't bought as much music since prices have been going up; they're generally not worth it to me. If you feel like you've been taken advantage of, then think about who was willing to pay the damned price. You were. The RIAA does a lot of despicable things, but charging what consumers are willing to pay for entertainment certainly isn't one of them. I'd be ashamed to get one of those rebate checks.

Re:Jesus (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351314)

Yes people were willing to pay an illegally inflated price for said items. Doesn't make it any less illegal because consumers are stupid.

Re:Jesus (2, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351323)

CDs are luxury items, and as such they're worth whatever people are willing to pay for them.

True. But this doesn't involve "how much people will pay", it involves fraud by way of screwing with the "Minimum Advertized Price".

If the music industry sold their CDs to retail outlets for $30, and the stores then sold for $50, that alone would not have caused the RIAA to lose this case. They lost because they played pricing games, which violate the Sherman antitrust act.

Think what you will, but they cheated and got caught, end of story.

Re:Jesus (3, Insightful)

bperkins (12056) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351392)

Collusion to set prices is illegal.

If you don't like it, why not talk to your representative and/or senator?

Don't look now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351300)

But everyone who cashes their checks, is giving them their personal info in order to deposit the check.

I guess that doesn't matter?

Not a troll, a serious question.

Seriously, what a waste! (2, Insightful)

Richthofen80 (412488) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351394)

wow, so thousands of dollars in legal fees later, we have ... a check for 13 dollars.

I really wonder, why even bother? Did this 'bite' the industry, or the 'violators'? a little. Probably not much.

I don't support this kind of legal action. I believe those who make stuff have the right to set the price. They can collude, conspire, or whatever. I don't care. if they're being unreasonable, I won't buy.

How much more effective could the community who was holding this lawsuit be by boycotting and organizing? a lot more effective than a lawsuit, which is long, drawn-out, and up to the capriciousness of a judge rather than our own individual decisions. How could I get $13.86 back? by refusing to do business with unreasonable companies. People say in previous posts to this thread 'i've bought $3,000 worth of merchandise and was overcharged more than $13!' and to that I say 'why the hell did you spend $3,000 with a company you thought was overcharging you?'

oh, no, not you too (4, Insightful)

SubtleNuance (184325) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351402)

Score 1 for the consumer!

Why have Americans taken to calling themselves Consumers? Your real power lies in Law, that law is written by CITIZENS. If your preceding citizens hadnt written some pretty keen laws, you current "Consumers" would be out $13.xx.

I cant stand it when people call me, or anyone else a f'ing consumer. Its goddamn offensive.

Re:oh, no, not you too (2, Insightful)

Mitleid (734193) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351499)

Because in a country as heavily capitalist as America, the only chance you have of effectively voicing your opinion is with your dollars. The legal system here has become so jaded and manipulated that it only seems to benefit those with enough money and influence to sway it to their whims, and sadly the only way Americans can make any difference is by taking some of that power away; namely depriving those powerful and rich individuals of our dollars.

I agree, it is offensive. But don't blame the semantics; blame the reality that is the United States.

Make a REAL difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351646)

OK, so you are dissatisfied with the legal system?

Are you fed up with politicians too?

Well, since voting isn't going to change anything (re: 2000 election), and electronic voting is going to change even less, what are you going to do?

Simple - the answer is get a gun, a knife, a baseball bat or anything and get out there. You can't be a part of the revolution sitting at a keyboard! The army may have tanks defending the RIAA and W, but they can't stop ALL the people.

You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem

Re:oh, no, not you too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8351511)

A Consumer is nothing more than a Producer in off hours.

Illegal copying (3, Funny)

tacarat (696339) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351421)

Too bad that copy of the letter you made was illegal. The RIAA will be by shortly to deliver your subpoena.

Score one for the trial lawyers, not the consumer (5, Insightful)

proclivity76 (755220) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351517)

For those of you who aren't keen to the way these settlements work, I'll enlignten. The lawyers get paid right away based on the total amount of the settlement. The consumers, plaintiff's, etc. get their money later, if not never.

The reason why insurance of all kinds is so high is because of this unending battle between insurance companies and trial lawyers. And you would think that insurance companies would be your friends in this type of situation, but they aren't. The more letigious society is, the more insurance you need. The more your insurance costs, the more money the insurance company makes with their margins.

I want to illustrate how bad this problem has become. Lookup "tobacco settlement lawyers fees" and see the billions that they collected. Also keep in mind the trial lawyers represent THE largets lobbying group in Washington, and not to spark a party line issue here, but the majority of their money goes to Democrat candidates. This is from triallawyersinc.com :

Out of total U.S. tort costs of over $200 billion--more than 2% of GDP--Trial Lawyers, Inc. grosses $40 billion per year in revenues, or 50% more than Microsoft or Intel and twice those of Coca-Cola.

Anytime that someone gets a retarded amount of money from some EVIL corporation out there, society on a whole is raped of the value of a hard-earned dollar because someone got something for virtually nothing. That means those who are producing carry the weight of that injust money redistribution on our collective shoulders. My big problem with trial lawyers is that they don't make life one bit better for anyone. When I program, I feel like I'm saving people some time and making life a little better for everyone. Trial lawyers do nothing but obstruct the progress of those that try to make life better. I think of them as financial and quality-of-life terrorists.

This "something for nothing is harmful" principle can be applied to every societal problem: welfare, prescription drugs, government health care, government housing, etc..

I urge you to all not celebrate those who get something for nothing. It is not a victory for the common man. It is just more burden for the common man to bear.

Re:Score one for the trial lawyers, not the consum (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351634)

lawsuit are what corporations understand because it costs them omney. This is a strong deterent.

Quit frankly, there needs to be a cap on what a trial lawyer can make.

"Score 1 for the consumer"; Not really (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351538)

This is the same trick as MS does.
Be legal if possible, but if not, then be illegal as hell. Make a ton of money and try not to be caught. If you are caught, then hold it off for as long as possible. The interest alone more than covered all of this. Sad, but true.

I didn't sign up. (3, Insightful)

MisterFancypants (615129) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351636)

Despite the fact that I could have legitimately signed up for this, for the Microsoft rebates, and various other class-action settlements, I absolutely refuse to do so. The vast majority of class action lawsuits in America these days are just as big a scam as anything the RIAA or Microsoft has ever pulled, and I refuse to be a part of them. Score 1 for the consumers? No, score 1 for the lawyers who walked away with millions. Score nothing for the consumers who walk away with peanuts and no real change in the way business is being done.

you poor sap... (2, Interesting)

neuraloverload (751606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8351660)

not just on the bandwidth either. the obviousness of the riaa legal ploy is really quite brutal. jack prices in collusion with others, pay next to nothing for manufacturing, lure in first time artists with explosive first albums and force them to sign a crappy contract, then do this for 20 years. then get taken to court and make everyone who want's a check worth less than the cost of a new cd in the store run the red tape to get it (no sir i have never downloaded music). any thoughts as to how much money was made, in profit, from the scam? sounds like piracy to me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>