Print 25 comment(s) - last by tcsenter.. on Oct 18 at 3:29 PM

“Enforcement campaign” costing more than it brings in

The trial proceedings of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas are continuously proving their worth as a fascinating insight the RIAA’s 4-years-and-counting campaign against P2P users.
One such insight: despite the fact that a vast majority of the RIAA’s nastygrams result in settlements amounting to a few thousand dollars, Sony’s Jennifer Pariser admitted under oath that the RIAA has spent “millions” of dollars on the campaign and, more importantly, “lost money on [the] program.”
But really, could it be any other way? Surely, between the RIAA’s own lawyers and the enforcers that they hire (SafeNet, MediaDefender, etc) the costs per settlement are far in excess of whatever measly amount the RIAA can settle for. Perhaps the RIAA could try to settle for more, but unfortunately for them $2,000 - $6,000 seems to be the sweet spot; raise it any higher and more people may opt to go to court, sending legal costs through the roof.
It’s important to note that the RIAA’s “enforcement program” is designed to settle infringement claims quickly, giving defendants multiple opportunities at settlement before going through an expensive court trial. This system – which seems to be working modestly, if unprofitably, well and even allows payment online – is perhaps the best manifestation of the above conclusion. After all, lawyers are expensive, why involve them in anything more than you have to?
I’d also wager that in its haste, the RIAA ends up cutting many expensive corners, like not going through the lengths needed to properly identify users (and then blaming the ISPs when caught), or suing dead people. These mistakes end up costing them: each one gets published and scattered along the internet’s winds, the mistake often ends up being taken to court, and the suit is eventually dropped. In turn, the RIAA files additional complaints with the expectation that they will be settled quickly and cheaply, inviting further opportunity for mistakes. It’s a vicious cycle.
It pleases me to see that someone in the industry finally understands that the hard-lining attitude on digital music isn’t exactly working. Mentioning EMI’s dropping DRM from its iTunes offerings – practically an invitation for piracy if there ever was one – may be beating on a dead horse, but it’s an important sign pointing towards this much-needed shift in thought. Further, the recent switch to DRM-free offerings from Wal-Mart, Amazon, or even services like Joost are, I believe, clear indicators that we are finally moving in a positive direction.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Err, no.
By masher2 on 10/15/2007 12:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Sorry Masher, but I have a different opinion about the RIAA program"

Your opinion isn't different. I'm not calling RIAA's enforcement effective. I'm just pointing out that calling it ineffective because its revenue collections don't outweigh its costs is sophomoric nonsense.

Your statement doesn't relate to my primary point at all. However, to respond to yours, I seriously doubt the average music buyer is "turning their back" on RIAA-labels. The average person is continuing to buy (and illegally download) the songs and artists they desire.

There really isn't any widespread movement to boycott RIAA labels. There's a few disgruntled consumers who really don't like much pop music anyway, who rationalize their declining purchase patterns as a political statement. But the people who LIKE that music still continue to obtain it...through means both legal and illegal.

Does that make the RIAA program effective? No...and in fact, I've seen little evidence that it has been. But by and large, its been primarily ignored by the average consumer. Claiming its generated any sort of widespread backlash is, unfortunately, just wishful thinking.

RE: Err, no.
By Oregonian2 on 10/15/2007 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just curious as to the future in the RIAA's ten year plan (surely they think long term, if only thinking). I don't mean what they'd like to see happen, but what they expect to see happen in the next ten years and whether they have a plan for that expectation (as opposed to their desired outcome). Seems like the only thing that's certain is change. Would like to be a fly on their wall (and a few others for that matter, but that's a different thread). Maybe Apple buys them. :-)

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki