RIAA wants you to pay $1.5 million for sharing an album
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Tags: Music Industry, RIAA, Royalties, Satellite Radio
The RIAA isn't satisfied with those already bloated statutory damages in file-sharing lawsuits, now they want you to pay an incredible $1.5 million for a ten-track album.
See, the problem is those dastardly compilation CDs. Who's to say that the songs came from a compilation album, or each from a separate album? The solution: fine each song as an individual album.
Yep, the RIAA wants each copied track to count as a separate act of infringement. So instead of a mere (and, still, absolutely ridiculous) $150,000 - the RIAA wants to count each song as it's own separate album. Meaning a ten-track soundtrack/compilation CD would run you a whopping $1.5 million in damages. (Forget the fact that the same song costs $1 from iTunes...)
It all part of the "PRO-IP" Act (aka, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property act: H.R. 4279). A bill that that Google's own top copyright lawyer, called the most "outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the US."
And guess who's among those who are sponsoring the so-called PRO-IP Act? None other than Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Steve Chabot (R-OH) - the boys who were "dismayed" by the prospect that the DOJ would be approving the Sirius-XM merger. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is also among the 12 co-sponsors of the PRO-IP act, the man behind the now-dead Copyright Modernization Act which would have eventually prevented you from recording satellite radio.
Thank goodness these Congressmen aren't being influenced by lobbyists or anything.
[Ars Technica via Gizmodo]
Side note: Someone sent me a link the other day with the statement: Gen-Y doesn't pay for music, so "why the hell would they pay for something they can get for free?" (Thanks Chris!) This is totally true and one inherent problem with satellite radio's subscription model. And worse yet, the RIAA's style of legislation/litigation will only help to breed resentment and indignation... only making the problem worse.
Featured Entries
Search Orbitcast:
Latest Poll
Sponsored Links
Comments
Time to reconsider that eMusic subscription and getting RIAA-label music CDs used.
Posted by: JonE | January 30, 2008 2:43 PM
I love this website but probably not the best taste in picture
Posted by: JR Smith | January 30, 2008 2:58 PM
This is fairly old news. They've tried to make this bogus argument in court for months now, with little success. Nonetheless, fuck them in their fucking fuckhole.
no disrespect.
thj
Posted by: teeheejimmy | January 30, 2008 3:24 PM
Love the picture it, that sums it up on what they are trying to do. Club you to death while they try to cramp shit down your throat.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | January 30, 2008 4:10 PM
Love the picture it, that sums it up on what they are trying to do. Club you to death while they try to cramp shit down your throat.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | January 30, 2008 4:11 PM
Between Ibiquity, Georgetown Partners, the NAB, and all of these other leeches, one wonders how this culture of entitlement came into being, and how it can be stopped.
Posted by: Max | January 30, 2008 5:30 PM
Thank god I steal my internet from my neighbor. Stupid neighbor.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | January 30, 2008 6:00 PM
@teeheejimmy: Courts are one thing, legislature is another. This bill was introduced in early December.
@Max: I'm not sure if it's the "generation" that's at fault. Georgetown, NAB, iBiquity, RIAA, etc - they're all using government semantics to preserve their aging business models.
It's actually a RECENT occurrence that music has been considered a "product" - music has always been a performed act throughout history. The only folks who think they're "entitled" to anything are the RIAA and Terrestrial Radio. The fact that people are file-sharing (aka "stealing") music is because it's counter-culture to the current product-based system.
Posted by: Ryan Saghir | January 30, 2008 7:05 PM
Jesus Ryan, the only out come to that picture is a violent slow painful death. Just bad taste.
Posted by: tom c. | January 30, 2008 8:28 PM
Really poor taste using that picture but thanks for reminding me why I've been boycotting Canada for the past 10 years.
Posted by: Faust | January 30, 2008 10:32 PM
Are you people REALLY that offended by that picture??? Come on.
Posted by: banff21 | January 31, 2008 10:24 AM
The picture is a statement... no seal was killed in the making of that picture... what happened after that picture was taken?? the guy put down his bat and they had a good laugh...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | January 31, 2008 11:15 AM
To be honest, I stole the picture from Gizmodo (original link here). I thought it was poignant and got the point across, albeit in a brutal sort of way.
I'm sorry if anyone is truly offended by it.
Posted by: Ryan Saghir | January 31, 2008 11:40 AM
Here's a good joke:
A baby seal walks into a club.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | January 31, 2008 12:39 PM
never apologize ! a little soap and water will get the sand out of the vag of the whiny cunts waaaaaaaaaaaahing about it
these people "offended" are more than likely the same people who get offended by "nappy headed ho's"
dont like it?find another site
that is all,i must attend to a baby seal that needs a clubbing
Posted by: pest spin | January 31, 2008 12:41 PM
I've updated the article to remove the photo. I've received several complaints over email - and honestly - the image seems to be detracting from the actual article itself. So I've changed to something else instead.
Posted by: Ryan Saghir | January 31, 2008 1:09 PM