The RIAA spend $58m fighting piracy: got 2% back

Overheal

A winner is you!

http://gizmodo.com/5587306/the-riaa-spent-58-million-suing-file-sharers-got-2-back

How much of a failure was the RIAAs campaign of ridiculous lawsuits of file sharers? How does a measly 2% return on a $58 million investment sound? That's good business right there. According to leaked tax forms from 2006-2008, the RIAA spent a whopping $58,258,394 on legal fees over the course of those three years, reaping $1,362,572 from accused pirates in return. Ouch.
But it was all totally worth it, luckily for them, as piracy is now dead and everyone is back to spending $18 for a CD that's half filler at their local Sam Goody. Oh, wait. [Recording Industry vs. The People via Paste Magazine]
Send an email to Adam Frucci, the author of this post, at [EMAIL="adam@gizmodo.com?subject=http://gizmodo.com/5587306/the-riaa-spent-58-million-suing-file-sharers-got-2-back"]adam@gizmodo.com[/EMAIL].

So I guess, when you think about it, Piracy was pretty damn good for the economy: it injected at least $58m into the pockets of lawyers and industry underlords; who then went on to buy ferraris, coke and hookers. Hookers and dealers that bought bread and milk, that kept mexican cow milkers in their jobs.

Go economy!

Abrasax

The RIAA, eh?

Ironic then that the RIRA profits massively from the same said piracy.

Gordon

The fact that they gave away this money to lawyers, is it considered charity and is tax deductable?

dreamers75

Abrasax wrote: »

The RIAA, eh?

Ironic then that the RIRA profits massively from the same said piracy.

The IRA are in OUR COMPUTERS CLICKING SAVE AS!!!!!!!!



ARGH!!!!!!!

giggsy664

Gah. Someone find the poster that shows the Pirate Bay have stolen about 46 times more money than money that exists. I have a link but its on a highly nsfw site -_-

Yakult

Shows them right for fighting it tbf.

Dubh Geannain

pffft the Government pumped €20 billion Euros in Anglo. Return = -100%

Them's the real pirates.

RolandIRL

hmmm...so rather than change their system of delivering music cheaper, the music industry decides to sue the ass off anyone who goes against their method. hmmm, i can see big profits in that. :rolleyes:

rovert

Cant beat the internet, just ask ROAD records.

The_Minister

whiteman19 wrote: »

hmmm...so rather than change their system of delivering music cheaper, the music industry decides to sue the ass off anyone who goes against their method. hmmm, i can see big profits in that. :rolleyes:

People don't want it cheaper - they want it free.

Which tbh is bull**** IMO - artists have the right to make money.

GLaDOS

giggsy664 wrote: »

Gah. Someone find the poster that shows the Pirate Bay have stolen about 46 times more money than money that exists. I have a link but its on a highly nsfw site -_-

Here

Cracked.com rocks

Timistry

ah ffs wont anyone learn that as long as technology advances, ways of getting around its anti-piracy measures will advance awayyyyyy ahead of it. It has been the way for the last decade, why not the next?:o Its proof that the music industry is short-sighted and frankly stupid. TBH etc becoming encrypted/driven underground

Einhard

I'm sure those legal fees helped in getting Eircom to block access to file sharing sites and the like. So the success or otherwise of their legal campaign probably shouldn't be judged on how much they recouped from pirates.











I have this overwhelming urge to shout ARRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH really loudly. I'll try and hold it in...

Overheal

The_Minister wrote: »

People don't want it cheaper - they want it free.

Which tbh is bull**** IMO - artists have the right to make money.

they make way better higher % returns on tour than they do on the CDs. When you buy a CD they make an itty bitty slice. you're paying the record shop their GP, then the expenses, the publisher themselves, then the band. It's the only way I can explain paying $25 for a CD, its stupid.

Einhard

Overheal wrote: »

they make way better higher % returns on tour than they do on the CDs.

If someone steals the music, hence getting it for nothing, the artists make a higher return? How exactly does that work?

Professey Chin

Einhard wrote: »

If someone steals the music, hence getting it for nothing, the artists make a higher return? How exactly does that work?

He means the band gets a much higher percantage of tour money then cd money.
Bands usually see fcuk all money from cd sales

Einhard

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

He means the band gets a much higher percantage of tour money then cd money.
Bands usually see fcuk all money from cd sales

Gotcha. Eh, was that always explained in the post as it is now? Or am I slowly going senile?!

Overheal

Einhard wrote: »

Gotcha. Eh, was that always explained in the post as it is now? Or am I slowly going senile?!

miiight have been a ninja edit. I do that a lot. proof-reading and all.

Timistry wrote: »

ah ffs wont anyone learn that as long as technology advances, ways of getting around its anti-piracy measures will advance awayyyyyy ahead of it. It has been the way for the last decade, why not the next?:o Its proof that the music industry is short-sighted and frankly stupid. TBH etc becoming encrypted/driven underground

This is true, but you know how in Science Fiction movies aliens always have sh!t-hot computer encryption? its from centuries of alien music publishers creating anti-piracy methods to stop alien pirates from stealing alien music at an imaginary losses of billions in alien currency.

But not the aliens in Independence Day. They didnt have a music or movie industry. Jeff f*cking Goldblum, man.

Naos

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

He means the band gets a much higher percantage of tour money then cd money.
Bands usually see fcuk all money from cd sales

There's also the arguement that when someone can download something, their taste in bands will naturally become more diverse as there's no risk in spending 15e - 20e for something they will potentially not like.

From this, people go to these the concerts the bands put on and the band makes more money than they would had the person never bought the cd.

(I'm kind of tired and as of yet am unable to form a coherent sentence but you get the idea!)

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

they make way better higher % returns on tour than they do on the CDs. When you buy a CD they make an itty bitty slice. you're paying the record shop their GP, then the expenses, the publisher themselves, then the band. It's the only way I can explain paying $25 for a CD, its stupid.

While what you've said is true, it's also quite short-sighted. For instance, who do you think pays for the tours that help the artist make their money? That's right, the labels. And what will entice the labels to pay for these tours? Yep, CD sales. It's a horribly vicious circle and while I think it certainly needs to be broken, I don't think stealing music wholesale is going to solve it.

Speaking of which, here are two extremely interesting articles which may find a good read:

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales

The Problem With Music by Steve Albini

My name is URL

The RIAA exists to protect an industry, not make profits. It may seem like the only people being protected are the big executives but that's far from the truth

There are hundreds of thousands of people employed within the industry. I mean it may be needless employment for the most part given today's technological possibilities but it still accounts for a large portion of economies.

Supermarket workers, laborers and delivery men etc all have needless jobs too, if everyone starts to grow their own food.. it doesn't mean that those jobs aren't important to the wider economy though.

What should they do to protect all of those jobs and the industry as a whole? I don't agree they're approaching the problem correctly but I honestly have no idea how they could improve

ScumLord

The_Minister wrote: »

People don't want it cheaper - they want it free.

Which tbh is bull**** IMO - artists have the right to make money.

I don't buy albums that often and since I started using last.fm I don't see that I ever will buy one again.

The record industry is reaping the rewards of turning an art form into a revenue spinning industry. They're over producing music for profit it's not about music and artists anymore.

There's too much music out there they're making the same song with slight variations over and over again, charging through the teeth and hard selling it to children. The poor saps that their selling have bought into the industry dream and have nothing much worth saying through their so called art.

The internet is the great levelling field it brings the kind of freedoms people have dreamt about for years and they won't accept it because they don't want to be equal they want to be better and more powerful than everybody else and for that I hope they fail horribly.

NothingMan

Abrasax wrote: »

The RIAA, eh?

Ironic then that the RIRA profits massively from the same said piracy.

Wow, so I help fund the IRA by downloading? What do they do, wait til they earn anough points on Hotfile or Rapidshare and cash them in for a USB rocket launcher ? Or do they have some way of cashing in on all the leeches they seed to over p2p sharing?

Piracy is not a big terrorist funding ploy, maybe it use to be, but now one nerd and his media centre rips a new DVD and shares it for free or a novelty reward on a file share site. I honestly can't see the IRA blowing up much with a nerf missile from the rocket launcher above.

ricman

SO unless you are a big star eg beyonce ,the only way of making money is touring ,merchandise, doing ads ,or selling music online ,or use a small HONEST
record company.ITS like if you are a painter lawyers,agents, manager,hangers on , gets 99per cent of your money, you sell a painting for 100euro,you get 1 euro.
some singers don,t know a 300k music video is paid for by their royaltys.
i,d say 90 per cent of records released make the singers/band almost no money .
anyone who buys a pirate dvd down the market is an idiot.
AS prince says the internet is over, well if you have 50million in the bank ,you don,t need the net,the net is a communications medium /network, you might as well say tv is over ,because i don,t watch it anymore.
music is an artform, i can make music , whether anyone will pay for it is a different question altogether.
they had a chance 12 years ago to setup a digital music market ,but instead they just sued napster etc

L.Jenkins

2% back. Talk about a solid investment, still can't rival the Irish banking system. €22 Billion píssed down the drain.

ricman

i,d say its more like 50 billion down the drain .

Abrasax

NothingMan wrote: »

Wow, so I help fund the IRA by downloading? What do they do, wait til they earn anough points on Hotfile or Rapidshare and cash them in for a USB rocket launcher ? Or do they have some way of cashing in on all the leeches they seed to over p2p sharing?

Piracy is not a big terrorist funding ploy, maybe it use to be, but now one nerd and his media centre rips a new DVD and shares it for free or a novelty reward on a file share site. I honestly can't see the IRA blowing up much with a nerf missile from the rocket launcher above.

It was a play on words, RIAA/RIRA, not to be taken seriously.

The thanks whore in me couldn't help it.

Please, carry on with your illegal downloading activities and don't be feeling guilty on my behalf. :cool:

blubloblu

Remember, the RIAA/IRMA by no means represent all record labels. There are plenty of good ones out there not out to sue their consumers. Before you purchase your next CD/download, check on www.riaaradar.com to see if your money is going to fund the RIAA's ridiculous and frankly unethical behaviour. You'll be surprised by how much stuff, once you move away from chart music, is not released by the major labels.

squod

blubloblu wrote: »

Remember, the RIAA/IRMA by no means represent all record labels. There are plenty of good ones out there not out to sue their consumers. Before you purchase your next CD/download, check on www.riaaradar.com to see if your money is going to fund the RIAA's ridiculous and frankly unethical behaviour. You'll be surprised by how much stuff, once you move away from chart music, is not released by the major labels.

+1


Fantastic find! I buy about three albums a month. I'll check them before I buy in future.

pooch90

The_Minister wrote: »

People don't want it cheaper - they want it free.

Which tbh is bull**** IMO - artists have the right to make money.

So let them play down the pub!

Oh, wait - they don't want to have to work for their money is that it?? Reckon being able to record yourself singing something and get someone to make it sound okay just the once should guarantee you a life of limo's and champagne??
Get on with it - nobody is depriving anyone of anything except the opportunity to think their worth more than they are.

Dempsey

LOL at the people trying to twist things so they dont have to feel guilty.

Capt'n Midnight

Timistry wrote: »

ah ffs wont anyone learn that as long as technology advances, ways of getting around its anti-piracy measures will advance awayyyyyy ahead of it. It has been the way for the last decade, why not the next?:o Its proof that the music industry is short-sighted and frankly stupid. TBH etc becoming encrypted/driven underground

The workaround to music encryption costs less than buying a single song online.

Roomic Cube

I download loads of music, I dont feel guilty or anything, if then I decide I like the music alot I buy it on vinyl record if it's available. And go see the band on tour

Dempsey

Roomic Cube wrote: »

I download loads of music, I dont feel guilty or anything, if then I decide I like the music alot I buy it on vinyl record if it's available. And go see the band on tour

Do you delete the albums you dont like and dont buy?

Hank Scorpio

yar harr fidely dee, do what you want cause a pirate is free, being a pirate is alright to be

you are a pirate!

ScumLord

Dempsey wrote: »

LOL at the people trying to twist things so they dont have to feel guilty.

I don't feel guilty in the slightest I think people should pirate as they don't seem to have the will power to simply ignore the crap coming out of the music industry. It and Hollywood should be destroyed, they are the enemy.

Dempsey

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't feel guilty in the slightest I think people should pirate as they don't seem to have the will power to simply ignore the crap coming out of the music industry. It and Hollywood should be destroyed, they are the enemy.

So if there was a better way of purchasing an artists music whereby they see more of the profits, you would use it?

Yes, Hollywood is the reason why the Irish Film Industry is non-existent/shiote!! :pac:

ScumLord

Dempsey wrote: »

So if there was a better way of purchasing an artists music whereby they see more of the profits, you would use it?

Yes, Hollywood is the reason why the Irish Film Industry is non-existent/shiote!! :pac:

I'd say they contribute to it. They've made people expect special effects and explosions, or romantic drivel with a hollywood celeb. Ireland like the sheep that we are try to ape that to appeal to that market and it comes off as amateurish.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem paying for music if their wasn't a load of suits standing in the middle taking their cut. When bands get huge though I don't see why they insist on being paid for their albums at all. They've made they're money and they are guaranteed a sell out crowd at their gigs. I don't understand how they get so greedy. I will support an artist but have no sympathy for a money making racket.

Dempsey

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd say they contribute to it. They've made people expect special effects and explosions, or romantic drivel with a hollywood celeb. Ireland like the sheep that we are try to ape that to appeal to that market and it comes off as amateurish.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem paying for music if their wasn't a load of suits standing in the middle taking their cut. When bands get huge though I don't see why they insist on being paid for their albums at all. They've made they're money and they are guaranteed a sell out crowd at their gigs. I don't understand how they get so greedy. I will support an artist but have no sympathy for a money making racket.

Where exactly do you draw the line on what is enough money for them? Define huge, define whats enough for any given person. Your view on this is very much left wing.

If you had a business idea and you earned a million or two from it, should you then provide your service for free or vastly reduced amount? Why should anyone be limited in what they can earn?

ScumLord

Dempsey wrote: »

Where exactly do you draw the line on what is enough money for them? Define huge, define whats enough for any given person. Your view on this is very much left wing.

If you had a business idea and you earned a million or two from it, should you then provide your service for free or vastly reduced amount? Why should anyone be limited in what they can earn?

Because it becomes obscene. You'd think once you get comfortable you could just spend your days doing the thing you supposedly love (making art) and wouldn't have to worry about the money.

It's their right to demand payment but it's not going to get my respect.

A business is different, a manufacturer needs resources to produce which requires money. Many entrepreneurs have no interest in a business once it's successful it's the challenge they love just as much as the money.

A musician has few expenses.

Metallica where the worst, made millions bitching about the man, then became the man and sued it's fans.

gizmo

ScumLord wrote: »

A musician has few expenses.

New gear.
Album recording costs.
Tour costs.

The label may "cover" some of these but the artists will more than likely end up paying them back for it over time.

As for Metallica, while what they did was clearly over the top, I don't think I'd ever be happy with people stealing something I made, regardless of how long it's out.

smellslikeshoes

It's all just a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted isn't it. They should have embraced the internet in the 90s before napster etc took off, anything they do now is just delaying the inevitable.

ScumLord

gizmo wrote: »

New gear.
Album recording costs.
Tour costs.

The label may "cover" some of these but the artists will more than likely end up paying them back for it over time.

As for Metallica, while what they did was clearly over the top, I don't think I'd ever be happy with people stealing something I made, regardless of how long it's out.

Many groups seem to be able to cover their cost with touring, it may be a case of getting to big for your boots if you can't. If a band is good they do well, the way things are now record studios inflate the band up to the star status and hard sell them when maybe they don't really deserve that standing.

Roomic Cube

Dempsey wrote: »

Do you delete the albums you dont like and dont buy?

if i dont like it i dont listen to it, and if its taking up space on my harddrive i'll get rid of it

PogMoThoin

Bands don't need record companies anymore. Any band can make a perfect quality album in their garage, edit it in their bedrooms and release it themselves as mp3 online. They no longer need expensive recording studios, expensive duplicating equipment or printing presses.

The music industry need to move with the times and offer a cheap method of attaining music, instead of wasting time and money they should focus their cash on a new business model. If they offered unlimited downloads for €100-150 per year I'd sign up immediately, so would most others here, making them more than they're making now today. I'll be a pirate until they do

Chuchoter

I like Metallica, when you buy one of their albums almost all the tracks are going to be really good, so I buy Metallica CDs. Same thing with Ani Difranco. If I download an album to see if its good or not, and its ****, I'm not going to buy it. If bands want to make money, make albums that have less filler.