Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Cuban Says RIAA Damages Should be $5 Per Month

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the simplistic-but-cute-and-vice-versa dept.

The Almighty Buck 693

Thomas Hawk writes "Mark Cuban is arguing over at Blog Maverick that with the introduction of Yahoo!'s new $5 per month music service that this needs to become the new de facto 'damages' that the RIAA ought to be able to claim when suing kids. After all, when the kids could have paid for the music via Yahoo! for $5 a month it makes it hard to say the music loss is worth more than that. 'The RIAA can no longer claim that students who are downloading music are costing them thousands of dollars each. They cant claim much of anything actually. In essence, Yahoo just turned possession of a controlled music substance into a misdemeanor. Payable by a $5 per month fine.'"

cancel ×

693 comments

Upload, not download (5, Insightful)

DustMagnet (453493) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558802)

The RIAA doesn't sue downloaders. They sue people who upload music. Yes I know, some programs upload what you download by default, but that change what they sue people for. You can't get the right to upload music for $5 a month. Even if you could, the RIAA can always sue for statutory damages, which are a lot higher than $5 a month even for downloading.

Re:Upload, not download (4, Insightful)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558856)

That's generally just because of the technology. First, it's possible to make a fair use defense based on your ownership of the CD or DVD. Second, uploading appears to be a bigger violation simply because you could be uploading to hundreds of people.

It cracks me up that you can get a small fine or few days in jail for shoplifting a CD, but downloading that same album online (with inferior quality!) can net you years of prison time and hundreds of thousands in fines!

Re:Upload, not download (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558961)

It cracks me up that you can get a small fine or few days in jail for shoplifting a CD, but downloading that same album online (with inferior quality!) can net you years of prison time and hundreds of thousands in fines!

Are you deaf? You can't get jail time or thousands in fines for downloading.

Re:Upload, not download (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558985)

Yes, you can. Downloading is no more legal than uploading. The RIAA are currently focusing their lawsuits on uploaders because it's more efficient.

Re:Upload, not download (2, Informative)

PurpleXanathar (800369) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559051)

Don't know how it is in the USA, but here in Italy they are infact two different crimes, with very different fines.

Re:Upload, not download (4, Funny)

JVert (578547) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559004)

Your may rob from the rich but i'll have your soul if you even think of giving to the poor!

Re:Upload, not download (4, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559042)

Well, it can, but it generally will not. I think more people (and days) have spent time in jail for shoplifting than for P2P-style piracy.

Generally though, you said it: the issue is one of damage. From the point of view of the recording industry, someone who distributes (directly and indirectly) one of their albums to millions (remember, I said directly and indirectly) of anonymous strangers is far, far, more damaging than someone who removes one copy of a CD from circulation without paying for it. From their point of view, the latter constitutes the removal of 2c of plastic from sale plus $5-10 (or so) in lost revenue (after retail margins etc.) The other constitutes, potentially, tens of thousands to millions of dollars in lost revenues through lost sales.

Which would you be more concerned about if you're heavily investing large quantities of money into funding the creation, recording, and promotion of music?

Re:Upload, not download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558892)

So, does that mean the RIAA should sue Yahoo...for $5? ;-)

Re:Upload, not download (1)

ankit (70020) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558894)

True, RIAA/MPAA are after people who are sharing the music/movies. But if they are fine everyone who is downloading movies/music $5 per month, that leaves no reason to fine the people uploading music.

It would be interesting if there was a small tax per month charged by an ISP that would legalize all "illegal" music downloads. Ofcourse, this assumes you delete the music as soon as you stop paying this tax, and never give it to anyone else who isnt paying this tax.

Re:Upload, not download (4, Interesting)

Bradee-oh! (459922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559052)

How would such a tax work when there is a very large proportion of ISP subscribers who don't and will never download media illegally? I have a feeling those users would be up in arms about it.

I understand that in Canada and a few other nations there is an excise tax on blank media to account for the potential piracy. It doesn't resolve the problem completely - people who have only legitimate uses for the blank media still pay the tax. But people with a computer and a CD-R drive don't have to pay the tax. And you only pay the tax in proportion to how much blank media you use. PLUS, the tax is relatively small for average-joe-burner. How do we implement such a "more fair" system for downloading media?

We make only the music downloaders pay the "tax" which, in this case, would be a $5/mo fee for Yahoo! music or the fee for another music provider of your choice.

Re:Upload, not download (4, Informative)

Bradee-oh! (459922) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558967)

Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a P2P network where you become an uploader (of specific chunks) the moment you start downloading? And when you finish downloading the file, most people leave it shared by default and you are now an uploader?

I understand that BitTorrent is a little different because there is an original seeder but after enough time it turns into a big P2P network just like Emule... errr.... Edonkey.

I know they target those who are the "big" uploaders, who share thousands of songs. But I'd wager that their standards for "big uploaders" are getting looser and looser and if the continue to see success with their current strategy, before long their standards will point to the "average joe P2P user." What happens then?

this guy is on drugs (3, Insightful)

Blymie (231220) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558805)

Wow.

This guy is about as bright as a 5 watt bulb.

It is like he does not even understand the reason that the RIAA is able to sue for thousands. The premise in court is (right or wrong) that the Music Industry is losing thousands per filesharer, for a specific reason. That is, each song available for download is being downloaded by thousands of people, and each of those downloads costs the RIAA membership the sale of a CD. Thousands of downloads * CD sale = mucho cash.

Again, this is the premise that would be followed in court.

Changing the price of a music from $CD_PRICE to $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE simply means that someone making files available, would be liable for $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE now. In other words, $num_of_users_downloading * $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE.

How is this ruining the RIAA in court? It only reduces the amount of damages per COUNT of people downloading.. that's all....

Put another way, the RIAA is not suing because you did not buy music. It is not suing the people that downloaded music. It is suing the people that _shared_ music, and setting the price accordingly.

Again, right or wrong, that's what happening. It's almost like this guy thinks people are being sued for downloading. They aren't. If they were, the RIAA could only sue for what they had lost in revenue, and that would be the cost of the songs the sued downloaded.

No, they sue from a much bigger angle. They sue with the claim that file sharers have cost them thousands of CD sales...

Re:this guy is on drugs (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558897)

Yahoo doesn't offer DRM-free CD-quality downloads, either, IIRC.

It's also not just the cost of the merchandise, but also legal and court fees, and punative damages.

In the end, it really doesn't matter what Mark Cuban, random guy with a geocities page (or whatever free service hosts his blog), thinks.

Re:this guy is on drugs (1)

teksno (838560) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558949)

just what drm'd file type do they use?...im just wondering.

Re:this guy is on drugs (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558997)

Actually Cuban has some relevance to the discussion. His ownership of the Dallas Mavericks may not be relevant, but his founding of Broadcast.com (later bought by Yahoo!) and his current involvment in art house theatres, the new star search, and other media ventures is. This guy is involved in the entertainment and technology industries and has been fairly outspoken against the RIAA/MPAA and thier tactics.

Re:this guy is on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558919)

Actually, you could then only count each user downloading once, as your assuming that user just got access to every song on yahoo. So, the new price would be:

UNIQUE($num_of_users_downloading) * $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE.

Each user ain't downloading just one file, they'll download hundreds.

Re:this guy is on drugs (1)

doyle.jack (836744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558960)

If I sold my Mustang to you could I get sued by Ford for it? If not, why not?

Ford could claim that if you really wanted the Mustang and I kept it to myself, you would have been forced to buy it from them. Then they would have had a total of two sales instead of one. Right?

If I sold my Mustang to you instead of you buying from them, they have just lost a sale.

Yes, they got my sale for my Mustang... but they could have had two sales which is the entire point, right?

Re:this guy is on drugs (2, Insightful)

QuijiboIsAWord (715586) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558981)

$num_of_users_downloading * $DOWNLOAD_YAHOO_PRICE.

Actually, that calculation doesn't really accurately portray the facts. If I download a file from someone, and they are sued for $5 for letting me download it, I shouldn't be counted in anyone elses lawsuit either right? Because after the first lawsuit, they've accounted for the $5 I would have paid for my monthly fee. Granted, that doesn't take into account any monthly fees past the first month..but then, theres no guarantee I kept the file more than a month after downloading it anyway. So, basically, the first guy sued should get royally reamed, but the lawsuits should get cheaper and cheaper as suits progress...

Re:this guy is on drugs (2, Informative)

brokenuser (863252) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558993)

Not quite.

I think Mark Cuban knows his way around digital media law[s] pretty well.

Re:this guy is on drugs (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559005)

Although to be fair, a person who is downloading from you is probably only downloading 0.1% (or whatever) of their total collection from you, so you should multiply the damages times that percent - their "stolen" yahoo-style service is a composite of a number of people offering uploads.

If you don't do this, picture the following: Person A downloads from person B and person C. Persons B and C are sued for 5$ each (10$ total) by the RIAA, who claim yahoo-scale damages against B and C for the downloads made by A; yet, that would mean that A was stealing a service that cost twice as much as Yahoo charges, if you base the value on the fines (10$).

Of course, as others noticed, Cuban ignores that damages != punative damages. His point does have a reasonable basis, however, as punative damages are generally at least somewhat related to real damages.

Re:this guy is on drugs (5, Funny)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559023)

Just want to clarify... you mean a 5 watt INCANDESANT light bulb right? ...Because a 5 watt incandesant bulb would be pretty dim while 5 watt fluorescent bulb would actually be considerably brighter in comparison. And then there are 5 watt LED bulbs...

This is slashdot after all. Please be specific about the technologies you refer to. :D

Re:this guy is on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12559046)


Only on /. does a person use perl to calculate the cost of legal fees.

Re:this guy is on drugs (1)

tOaOMiB (847361) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559047)

Some quick calculations:
1 person uploading * 1000 (claimed) downloads * $5/month * (82 years (life expectancy) - 22 years (average age downloading)) * 12 months / year = $3.6M. Yeah, I'm sure the kids are going to try to use this defense in court. That whole monthly charge really is a kicker! Instead of multiplying by the number of songs shared, we multiply by the number of months you have access to all the songs (approximately 720).

Brilliant~ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558806)

Cuban for El Presidente!

That doesn't compute. (5, Insightful)

k96822 (838564) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558807)

That is like saying the most a person can be fined for stealing a shirt from WalMart is the price of the shirt.

Re:That doesn't compute. (1)

Brando_Calrisean (755640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558853)

fined != sued

But yeah, the logic is a bit funky.

Re:That doesn't compute. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558866)

Well... Yah...

Re:That doesn't compute. (5, Insightful)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558890)

Actually the logic is completely correct. But you're confusing "fines", which are the result of criminal prosecution, with "damages", which are the result of civil suit.

Damages are usually limited to "actual" losses, which is exactly "the price of the shirt". Fines can be much more, but they're exacted by government, not industry cabals (see Blockbuster).

Re:That doesn't compute. (3, Interesting)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559018)

There's compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

Punitive damages can be significantly more than actual losses. That's deliberate.

Re:That doesn't compute. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558976)

And if I rape Mark Cuban's wife, I should only be able to be sued for fair market value of 15 minutes with a whore.

Re:That doesn't compute. (1)

mattmentecky (799199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559001)

'That doesnt compute' isnt a fair attack. He is trying to argue that a current norm(RIAA suing downloaders for lots of $$$) isnt fair and you merely site a somewhat parallel norm. This does nothing for the RIAA v Downloaders argument, all it does is highlight that there is another similar situation outside of the argument of this one.

You cite your example as if it is the de facto standard that everyone agrees someone that steals a t-shirt deserves to be punished more-over the price of the shirt, while I would say some disagree with even that.

Oh...now I get it. (5, Funny)

187807 (883881) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558809)

After reading the title I was wondering why the RIAA would care what someone in Cuba thinks.

Re:Oh...now I get it. (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558977)

I wondered why Larry Cuban [barnesandnoble.com] was writing about file sharing.

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558810)

I like that standpoint. I've agreed all the way thru that the RIAA is suing people for way too much, and it is rediculous.

Let's see if this new Yahoo! pricing helps at all.

First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558811)

Been waiting to get one of these

Re:First Post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558883)

...and you'll have to wait some more

Re:First Post! (0, Offtopic)

ak3ldama (554026) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558899)

Some peoples lives are just so unfullfilled ;-P

Cubans (5, Funny)

iBran (763687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558813)

Who do those Cuban people think they are, telling American companies what to do!?

Re:Cubans (5, Funny)

travellingmonk (884671) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558966)

Who do those Cuban people think they are, telling American companies what to do!?

I had an image of Castro standing there with a cigar in one hand, iPod in the other, telling everyone that music was the property of the people and so everyone should be able to download songs for free...

Re:Cubans (1)

Xocet_00 (635069) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559017)

Why not? Americans keep telling other countries what to do (DMCA, anyone?). This seems only fair.

Castro is a communist! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558816)

He thinks it should all be free! Don't listen to cubans.

RIAA (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558818)

This makes perfect sense. Why should they be able to sue for more than the "damages" would even have been?

Re:RIAA (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558901)

It's called "punative" damages. That money is intended to deter people from the act of theft. (Similar to the fines charged to speeders.) If punative fines didn't exist, then someone might figure that they would only have to pay for stuff that they were caught stealing.

Re:RIAA (1)

deaddrunk (443038) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559020)

Punitive damages are the preserve of criminal prosecutions, not greedy cartels' frivolous lawsuits.

Re:RIAA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12559037)

It's called "punative" damages

It's actually called "punitive" damages.

cuban eh? (0, Offtopic)

bnitsua (72438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558821)

I always knew slashdot was a little left-leaning, but using Fidel Castro as an article source is going a bit too far I think...

Re:cuban eh? (4, Funny)

kryogen1x (838672) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558842)

I remember seeing a user on slashdot with the name FidelCastro. But it wasn't him that submitted it.

Re:cuban eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558880)

Too bad. That would have been funny.

Well, sort of. (4, Insightful)

SocialEngineer (673690) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558836)

The main people the RIAA are going after are the SHARERS - the people who have hundreds, dare I saw thousands of songs in their shared folder, and are on a high-speed connection. 5 dollars per month per each individual person who downloaded from that one person is probably a little more what the RIAA would be after, if they had to affix something like that to the cost.

Re:Well, sort of. (1)

downsize (551098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558965)

Yea it is sort of, the blog is basically saying that the person RIAA is going after = Yahoo's service (at least that is my interpretation). but that user does not have a contract or pay X amount to whomever for the licensing to share the music.
but what I do like, is that we are getting closer (or should I say further away from) to the facts/truth instead of BS numbers. It always kills me how suits can sit in an office and estimate up their $$$ billions of losses from pirating. Those new cigarette commercials (guys in suits talking about how the tricked the public) makes me think of these RIAA/MPAA guys. The spend more time trying to SPIN every dollar into their pocket than they do in building something more successful.
but perhaps we should not complain, as their mistakes are giving us better services without having to deal with them directly anymore (napster, etc. and now yahoo).
now as for the $5/mo max or as you are saying $5/mo/person - well that is still cheaper than $5,000 per song or whatever tag they were trying to pin.

Booyah! (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558839)

Point, Cuban.

Though I think, legally, that violations before this would still be valued the same as they were (although iTunes prices could be the check for that at a buck a song or thousands of dollars of damages instead of hundreds of thousands...) (Though I could be wrong about that.)

Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558843)

That's an interesting point. Although I admit the RIAA would still probably jump at the opportunity to sue for thousands of dollars, the lawyer might try and pull that card in court, which might set a precedent, which would be cool.

Cool ...... (1)

ad0le (684017) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558844)

I'd pay the RIAA $5 a month just to piss them off. I think it's a bit of a utopian idea though.

Re:Cool ...... (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558978)

But would you pay them $5 per month for each person who downloads from you?

And you thought Fidel was bad (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558848)

Wait until the RIAA hears about this!

total cost of settlement (1)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558850)

So, if the kid gets sued when he's 18, then lives to be 80, that's 62 years * 12 mo/yr * $5 = $3720.

This seems comparable to their current settlement amount.

Re:total cost of settlement (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559003)

So, if the kid gets sued when he's 18, then lives to be 80, that's 62 years * 12 mo/yr * $5 = $3720.

This seems comparable to their current settlement amount.


But you fail to take both interest and inflation into account. That $5USD you payed 62 years ago would be worth more than $5USD now due to the interest you'd earn from (say) a savings account. Not to mention how the US dollar has is in a constant state of inflation; $3700 today is probably gonna be worth less than $3700 60 years from now..

To "settle" for thousands of dollars at an early age like that sucks (unless you come from money).

Silly statement (0, Redundant)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558858)

Mark Cuban is arguing over at Blog Maverick that with the introduction of Yahoo!'s new $5 per month music service that this needs to become the new de facto 'damages' that the RIAA ought to be able to claim when suing kids.

That's a nice sentiment, but I'm afraid the law doesn't work that way. Part of the damages are punative, and part of the damages are intended to offset losses from a chain of piracy started by the individual. i.e. Because he didn't pay his $5, now hundreds of others won't pay their five dollars, and may even incite others to not pay their five dollars.

I'm not saying that the current laws are good (the music industry did make their own problem by not responding to market pressures), but they aren't as cut and dry as suggested either.

Two things (2, Insightful)

merlin_jim (302773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558865)

1. You have to take into account everyone that could have gotten the file from someone when talking about lost revenue

2. The purpose of the fine is a) to recoup lost revenues and b) to discourage people from breaking the law

While the value of 2a might have gone down, that doesn't really affect 2b.

Re:Two things (1)

Joe Mucchiello (1030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558973)

Not that I think this idea has any merit, but....

> 1. You have to take into account everyone that could have gotten the file from someone when talking about lost revenue

Which means you can only sue one person per month. After you sue the first person, the second person says, the "everyone who could have gotten the file for X" is already paid for by the suit filed against person 1. This fee is monthly, not per download. The company should not be able to claim the same lost revenue twice. If there are 100,000 downloaders, they can't sue two people for $500,000 lost revenue each.

Ah, none of this makes any sense anyway.

Mark Cuban is the Best! (3, Funny)

Egorn (82375) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558872)

The RIAA couldn't manage a Dairy Queen.

Re:Mark Cuban is the Best! (1)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559040)

>> The RIAA couldn't manage a Dairy Queen. Sure they could! They'd just change the lines from "Order Here" and "Cashier" to "Orders you may or may not place" and "Out-of-court Settlements".

no incentive (1)

PMuse (320639) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558876)

If the taking first and only paying when forced to do so is allowed to be equally cheap with paying first, then there would be no incentive to pay first whatsoever. Such a low-balling of the damages is no less silly than the high-balling that RIAA does.

Re:no incentive (1)

pthisis (27352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559030)

If the taking first and only paying when forced to do so is allowed to be equally cheap with paying first, then there would be no incentive to pay first whatsoever.

Uhh, there are criminal penalties on top of the civil ones (the criminal penalties may be fines or jail time).

But the civil penalties are generally limited to the value of the goods/services stolen (this is not always true--some cases allow punitive damages to be levied in addition to nominal damages).

E.g., if I steal a CD from a store, I have to give them the CD back (or pay for it if I no longer have it). That's the civil penalty. Its purpose is not to deter the crime but rather to make the victim whole again (restore them to their original condition).

There is also a criminal penalty, which may be a fine, jail time, community service, etc. That's the punitive portion of the law, and it's exacted by the government (not via a lawsuit by a private company). If it's a fine, it goes to the government and not to the record store.

Similarly, if I download a song from the RIAA, they should be able to recover only the cost of the stolen/misappropriated property from me. The government could also go after me for criminal copyright violation, possibly fining and/or imprisoning me.

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558881)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:37:00 CEST 2005 [4362]

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558884)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:37:00 CEST 2005 [7956]

First off somebody has to share for people to DL.. (1)

CSMastermind (847625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558886)

So this brings up the question, who's not willing to pay 5$ a month for music and will insist on downloading it still?

Re:First off somebody has to share for people to D (1)

hostyle (773991) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558989)

Me - if I'm forced to use their DRM, and only allowed play paid for music on their approved hardware.

Re:First off somebody has to share for people to D (4, Interesting)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559022)

I don't know if you realize, but that 5 dollars per month has to be paid EVERY month. Once you stop paying, the collection is worthless. On the other hand, with P2P songs you get to keep them forever.

Second, they will not play on iPods, only certain Microsoft backed "Play for Sure" devices.

Third, free is still cheaper than $3000, assuming you're 20 and live another 50 years.

Fourth, P2P files are unencumbered with any DRM. Thus, you're getting more value for NO money.

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558889)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:37:00 CEST 2005 [8903]

*sigh* over music (0)

johansalk (818687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558893)

I wish all this energy and enthausiasm expended on "rights" over or to music is at least partly expended to more essential matters such as food, medicine and shelter; there's much poverty in the world and there are attempts to practically euthenise the poor and cut off their pittance through fabricated social security crises.

Re:*sigh* over music (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558992)

attempts to practically euthenise the poor and cut off their pittance through fabricated social security crises.

No, what we need to do is rid the world of ignorant, ideological sacks of dog shit like you. Anyone who can support Social Security in its current form is too stupid to even be worth spitting on. If it were the "other side" supporing SS reform, you'd be ejaculating your degenerate genetic material all over the place with pro-reform glee. And you KNOW I'm right, so don't waste the time to deny it.

You want to wipe out poverty in the world? Hand out some fucking birth control to all these people living in mud pits who insist on squirting out endless children. You might want to implement some more regime changes while you are at it, because piss poor governments in the Third World are the other big problems.

And you can either accept that truth, or continue to be a useless dumbass.

And there are as yet undiscovered tribes living in volcanic caves beneath the Antarctic ice that know you will prodly and defiantly choose to remain a useless dumbass.

Re:*sigh* over music (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559034)

It won't because we've already lost on patents on medicine, GE foods, shelter, etc...

Although your point that arguing about this is pointless is valid. But then again why would the human race care about things like starting a war on bullshit information but freak out about an article in a magazine that was based on (reportedly) bullshit information.

People are narrow minded and short sighted. If they weren't it would be a lot harder to succeed in this world but it might be a better place to live. Ahhh.... rational thought and cooperation, what a world it could be.

Re:*sigh* over music (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12559039)

Wow, you are an unmitigated moron. Congratulations.

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558896)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:37:00 CEST 2005 [6378]

Bad Math (2, Insightful)

kmo (203708) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558900)

If you follow Cuban's argument through, the RIAA could easily claim that it is due $5 per month from you and everyone who got a copy of a song from you illegally . Which puts the damages back where the RIAA wants them.

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558912)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:37:00 CEST 2005 [2307]

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558916)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:39:24 CEST 2005 [8520]

The world is geting smaller... (2, Informative)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558921)

Personally, I buy all of my music from a Russian company [allofmp3.com] myself...

Re:The world is geting smaller... (4, Insightful)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559027)

Actually, buying music from allofmp3 may equal stealing, depending on what country you are in. The fact that you are paying a Russian company money does not make it legal to download the songs from countries ruled by plutocracies (like the USA). If the download service you are using does not have the proper right to sell citizens of your country the music then you might as well be downloading it from any common peer to peer service.

$5 per month *per user* (2, Insightful)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558922)

Since Yahoo charges $5 per month per user, the RIAA would by the writer's logic, sue for the same. So if Joe Shmoe uploads a large amount of songs and 1000 people download at least one of them within a month, Mr Shmoe owes $5000 to the RIAA.

Of course the RIAA could also look to Apple and say they're worth $1 per song per user. In which case Mr Shmoe would owe $1 * 1000 * number of songs downloaded.

This assumes that the uploader tracks the number of users and downloads and can verify the information to the satisfaction of the courts. This is why the RIAA and MPAA sue for generally large piles of cash. It's a very rare pirate that tracks their user base as well as Apple and Yahoo and every other legitimate music downloading business. The pirate is then at the mercy of the courts to decide how much they owe if they don't just settle with the RIAA.

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558923)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:39:56 CEST 2005 [2492]

Missing the point (1)

The Woodworker (723841) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558924)

According to the RIAA's statements, they are pursuing those guilty of piracy, not distribution. If distribution were the case, couldn't everyone just claim they were a form of radio webcast and just pay the fee mandated by the Library of Congress for each song uploaded? Even at $.30 per song, I can't see is being too much. Going after them for piracy is much more profitable. They can say a CD has 8 songs and costs $16.00, so each song is worth $2.00. Cuban is saying the most anyone could steal is $5.000 per month, based on the going rate of the music (on Yahoo), and I tend to agree.

Triple damages! (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558932)

After all, when the kids could have paid for the music via Yahoo! for $5 a month it makes it hard to say the music loss is worth more than that.
In several types of suits, one can generally sue for triple damages. So it would be $15/month!

... even though the logic IS pretty dodgy. The analogy made by another about stealing a T-shirt from Wal-Mart is pretty apt. If you get caught, the penalty is likely to be a lot more than $6.99.

penalties must exceed cost of goods (2, Insightful)

PMuse (320639) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558943)

[Insert here a long, tired speech about the differences between copyright infringement and theft.] Nevertheless, all penalties for stealing something are far in excess of the value of the goods. Otherwise, every shopper would walk out of every grocery store without paying every time. Why pay first when you can safely wait until after the seller complains?

bend over.... (1)

super_ogg (620337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558947)

...and take it in the ass RIAA. Stop trying to bullshit people. It might have worked at one point but now, people are rebelling against buying CD's for the rediculous prices that they are set at. 100 pack of CDR's for $15. Don't tell me you have to sell them at $25 a disc. And the artists? Well, I've heard some of the shit that is going to platinum and you can't tell me that you recorded the main chorus from the singer and just put it on repeat. They sure didn't work hard to get that on the album. All computers, no talent.
ogg

Irishman says GUINNESS beer should be $10/week. (1, Offtopic)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558955)

Since you can get swill like Miller Genuine Draft or Red Dog in any college town for $5 all you can drink from 9-1, Guinness should be available at a bulk discount as well.

Re:Irishman says GUINNESS beer should be $10/week. (1)

Ikeya (7401) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559048)

Offering Guinness at a bulk discount? Brilliant!!

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558959)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:41:51 CEST 2005 [8829]

plus punative damages (1)

TLouden (677335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558964)

after all, we don't really want to encourage theft. I'm all for burning riaa but kids really should be stealing music. I'm discusted when my classmates (the ones driving a brand new lexus or suv) say things like 'I paid for the ipod, i deserve the music for free' and use that as justification for stealing thousands of songs.

Re:plus punative damages (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559050)

Remember though, as wrong as what is occuring might be, the crime is copyright infringement. YOu apply the term "stealing" without defining it, like others here who present similar statements, which leads to discussions on that topic which I just sparked sort of.

So, how do you define "stealing?" What about free nadl egal independent songs people can download being another source of free music people could turn to?

disingenuous if I understand it correctly (4, Interesting)

brontus3927 (865730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558971)

I thought subscription based services like Rhapsody and Yahoo were just streaming. If you want to acutally download the song and listen to it from somewhere else than your internet-connected computer, you had to pay an additional fee ($.79/song in Yahoo's case) I mean, if I could actually DOWNLOAD an unlimited amount of music and listen to it on all my PCs, on an mp3 player, and burn it to CD to listen in a car, for $5/month or even $20/month I'd jump at the chance. But I'm not going to pay $5/month for the privelege of listening to music and the ability to pay more to buy it.

would you like DRM with that combo meal? (1)

PMuse (320639) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558979)

Yahoo is not selling DRM-free tracks. It says nothing about the value of ripped music that Yahoo is renting crippled music for $5.

$4.99/month does NOT includes burnable!!! (1)

Juiblex (561985) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558994)

I am not defending RIAA, neither in favor of RIAA destroying students just because of some downloaded MP3, but at this $5 price, Yahoo only allows DRM'ed WMA's that are illegal to convert to MP3 or to burn to Audio CD's. The price for burnable music is $0.79/music... still a high price for people who hold libraries of more than 500 MP3...

I agree (3, Insightful)

ZosX (517789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12558995)

There should be caps on this sort of thing anyways. Remember the kid who made a search engine for his University and when the RIAA found out that people were using it to search other people's shares for MP3s they sued the kid for $10,000 which he paid out of pocket from his college fund. Fortunately for him he has since recovered his money thanks to an internet fund raising drive, but $10,000 is an awful lot to sue for when someone has not caused you any sort of monetary damages directly. I could only imagine the world of hurt the poor kid would be in if he didn't have the funds to just simply settle.

This is chilling precedent. What's to stop the RIAA from one day hacking into my machines and finding some MP3s (actually, they will find a LOT) and deciding that I am distributing them or that I do not legally own all of them? Can I afford to pay some schmuck lawyer to help me defend myself against this tirade? I can't, as I am unemployed currently. Could I afford a $10,000 "fine"? Probably not. People put other people's lives at risk with drunk driving, but when they are caught, they face only a $3,000 fine here in good ole Pennsyltucky. Aparantly putting the lives of people in danger is only worth $3000 to the state, while saying that stealing some music from a corporation that owes a multitude of its artists money and does its best not to pay is ludicrous is worth $10,000 is totally ludicrous.

The government doesn't need to get involved in this sham either. Hasn't anyone read the news? Record sales have been up. I guess the piss poor economy has had a lot more to do with sales driving down than some college kids who wouldn't have bought the freaking album new anyways.

For the record, 90% of the albums I've ever bought were from the used bin. It would be safe to say that I never supported the artists in the first place. KRS-One has this great line about how "if you downloaded the album, come to the show." I'm sure he makes a lot more from ticket sales at shows than he does from his albums. Maybe more people need to get out and see shows and maybe more shows need to start costing less than $50 a seat!

Is Dave Matthews really worth $100 to go see with your girlfriend? (assuming one has one here)

Bad Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12558998)

Sure, the damage might only be $5. But in some states with three-strike laws, the third time you break the law, even if you steal something worth just $5, they put you in jail. Like marijuana, stealing music is merely a gateway to something worse.

It is completely absurd to suggest you can break the law all you like for just $5 a month.

um, damages + PENALTY (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559010)

Cuban is an idiot if he thinks that the fine should be equal to the cost of the goods copied. There exists something called penalty.

Does not compute... (1)

Konowl (223655) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559029)

This simply does not compute.

Firstly, right or wrong, is the RIAA not sueing the fileSHARERS, not the downloaders?

Subsequently... if I steal a 50 cent chocolate bar, should my "punishement" be... paying 50 cents?

I'M AN OPEN PROXY, BAN ME! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12559031)

This message is posted from an open proxy. Open proxies are used to crapflood sites like Slashdot. Please mod this comment down so the proxy gets banned. If you don't care about open proxies, please mod this comment down because it's offensive to NIGGERS and KIKES.

Tue May 17 21:47:30 CEST 2005 [9124]

Home to Roost (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12559044)

The entire "webcasting" fee structure put into law under the Library of Congress Copyright Office was based on Yahoo's purchase of Broadcast.com, including their music publishing licenses. In one of the most simpleminded accounting scams of the entire Bubble, CARP (representing copyright owners) basically divided the sale price (in maximum Bubble-inflated shares) by the number of songs, arriving at 0.12 cents per listen. Nevermind the rest of the value of the sale. Nevermind the totally inflated share price. Nevermind the transaction let a license pay for itself with a few listens, perpetuating the markup. The single transaction established the base "value" of a webcast song listen.

Even the LoC didn't exactly buy that formula, but arbitrarily cut the fee to 0.07 cents. But allowed minimum charges of $500:year, excluding hobbyists and underfunded public broadcasters, including schools.

Now we see the actual value is $5:month, at most (including the rest of the operation). The great irony? Cuban sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo! Now he's using the money he got to fund the correction of the fee to a rational level. This is all so selfreferential that it almost seems like the bubble never popped.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...