RIAA to drop suits

[Tom Adams]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html

[Daddy Dee]

That is indeed an abrupt change in tactics.

[toddvj]

Wait. Is this April Fool's Day?

[triceratops]

This is great news.

Most of the corporations in the record industry have engaged in criminal behavior for years. They have stiffed artists for royalties as a matter of course, and only artists with the resources have resorted to lawsuits to eventually get paid by the industry.

The RIAA suing file sharers was almost laughable in that they claimed they were protecting the artists royalties (yeah, the same ones they weren't paying). But the RIAA was starting to get some serious legal challenges to their lawsuit strategy and they were probably going to have to start paying for defendants' legal expenses in some cases where they were challenged. The whole premise of the lawsuits was based on people rolling over and giving up a couple of grand to stop the threats.

A lot is changing. More and more artists are producing their own music and distributing it too. The pay-what-you-want Radiohead download was a great concept and turned out to be a lucrative deal for the band. A couple decades ago, the record industry forced digital technology down everyone's throat because it was cheaper to make (less shipping costs, less plastic costs, less storage costs and cheaper to produce) yet they charged more for it. A lot more. Ironically, the digital revolution is what did them in because the technology changed the patterns of production and distribution.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a countersuit against the RIAA for all the money they extorted from people in the downloading lawsuits, and all the legal expenses they forced on the defendants? Where did the money go? Did they give it to the artists? Yeah right--they don't even pay them for the sales of their records!

[djk]

Do lawyers do this sort of thing on a contingency fee basis?

35,000 lawsuits at only $200 per suit would cost the RIAA $7M. Would a lawyer work this cheap?

My guess would be they offered the lawyers 40% of what they collected from the marks. If I remember correctly, they were suing for an avereage of $4K.

$4K is an interesting figure, it used to be what it cost a radio station for a BMI or ASCAP license for a whole YEAR.

[Don Richard]

The RIAA suing file sharers was almost laughable in that they claimed they were protecting the artists royalties

I wasn't aware that the RIAA had anything to do with artists royalties at all. They represent music producers like record companies and labels. ASCAP and BMI are the artists rights groups who are in charge of collecting and distributing royalties.

[triceratops]

The RIAA suing file sharers was almost laughable in that they claimed they were protecting the artists royalties

I wasn't aware that the RIAA had anything to do with artists royalties at all. They represent music producers like record companies and labels. ASCAP and BMI are the artists rights groups who are in charge of collecting and distributing royalties.

Thanks for pointing that out, Don. You're right that the RIAA does not have anything specifically to do with paying artists. They are serving the interests of the record labels and the labels have contracts with the artists and are supposed to pay royalties to the artists. The RIAA says it is there to protect the intellectual property and free speech rights of the artists, but it is only indirectly through their support of the industry. They want to sound like they are protecting the artists, but they are really protecting the interests of those that historically have cheated the artists.

ASCAP and BMI is a different story, they are there to collect fees and distribute them to writers and publishers, not performers. I realize a lot of great artists write their own music, but they may or may not own the rights to what they wrote! In the old days it was common for young bands to sign away publishing rights to their songs to the label when they got a recording contract. There is a striking example of this in the movie about Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers "Running Down a Dream." I also recall some years ago when there was discussion about Michael Jackson's assets and how much money he had, and it was mentioned that he owned the publishing rights to much of the Beatles catalog--so apparently even the Fab Four didn't own the rights to what they wrote.

In the past decade or so ASCAP and BMI have engaged in bullying every possible public venue like restaurants, bars, stores, etc. that play music for their employees and patrons. These organizations have worked in cooperation with cable music stations to get these venues to stop playing LPs, CDs, or tapes and sign up for a cable music service. The music service then pays a royalty to ASCAP/BMI. So now all these places that used to personally select distinctive music are forced to use corporate-produced programmed stuff. I frankly think it sucks.

I should also probably add some perspective to my cranky comments on this thread. I buy lots of CDs and LPs and never download music, not even legal downloads because I like to have a physical item. Whenever possible I go to live shows and try to buy recordings directly from the artists. I love music, but don't like the record industry.

triceratops