RIAA's final tab for Capitol v. Foster: $68,685.23

[cy]

Debbie Foster's battle with the RIAA appears to be finally over. Today, a federal judge in Oklahoma closed the book on Capitol v. Foster by awarding her $68,685.23 in attorneys' fees, a ruling first
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070716-riaas-final-tab-for-capitol-vs-foster-68685-23.html

Late last week, the RIAA was dealt another setback in its battle against copyright infringement on college campuses in the US. A federal judge denied the record labels' motion to conduct ex parte discovery to determine the identities of seven students at the College of William and Mary,
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-riaas-war-against-on-campus-filesharing.html

 

[gorn]

The bottom line for the RIAA is the publicity it gets from the actions it takes against people. Prior to my retirement I was involved in one of their cases and had to work closely with one of the RIAA's head people. He was a nice enough guy, but the RIAA's policies were somewhat troubling to me. I was able to clear the "suspect" through forensic analysis of his computer so his name was never dragged through the media and they got no publicity from the case. The RIAA even sent a letter of commendation on the work I did to my taskforce.

 

[senecaripple]

good for the riaa. now lets work on the mpaa

 

[Sub_Umbra]

The RIAA needs to take a couple of deep breaths. They should try to get outside more -- maybe start up a softball team. I resent the fact that when I purchase blank CDs it is considered a de-facto proof that I am using them to distribute 'pirated' music. (A portion of all proceeds from blank CD sales goes to IP holders to 'compensate' for what they refer to as 'piracy.') Does that mean that I've already paid the royalties and may do as I please with whatever files I come across? Hell, I don't know. They're nuts. They don't make any sense. What about all of the people who are forced to pay for this crime they never commit? Hell, I don't know. The RIAA is nuts. They don't make any sense.

In my city if you own a cafe and play legally purchased music CDs while your customers eat the RIAA rep shows up and shakes you down for hundreds of dollars a year to play the CDs you've already bought so that 'the artists will be compensated.' Does that mean that if you own a cafe and you've already been shook down by the RIAA for an extra 'fee' you may DL and play any music you like since you've already paid the hacks at the RIAA for the right to play it? Hell, I don't know. They're nuts. They don't make any sense.

Fortunately, like those lobbying Congress to protect the sales of buggy whips after Ford started mass-producing cars, these fossils and their silly, obsolete business models will be hard to remember in just a few years...

 

[gorn]

There is only an "RIAA" fee on blank CD's that are labeled for music. If you buy the cheaper non-music CD's that fee isn't added on. The only difference between music CD's and data CD's is the added cost that goes to the record companies.

 

[LightBen]

Gorn is correct about the fee being added only to music-type CD-Rs (how many of those are sold anymore, I don't know). The fee is indeed supposed to compensate record companies for their assumed losses. However, according to an article I read a while back, no record company or artist has ever seen a cent of that money. The article claimed that it is all being held by the RIAA. Can anyone comment on this?

-Ben