sued by the RIAA for 1.65 Trillion


The RIAA is suing the website on behalf of EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music, and Warner Music in the amount of $150,000 for each of the 11 million songs that were downloaded from June to October of 2006. That comes to a lawsuit totaling $1.65 trillion.

Full Story

Founders Note:
Why is the RIAA's internet marketing strategy located in their legal department?



I'm not sure how I feel about the RIAA.

However, I do feel that artists should be paid for their work; just as we don't owe anyone our work for free, they don't owe their work for free. That's what copyright is all about -- the right to copy.

So .... does offer/sell/whatever copyrighted works? I'm gonna guess that's true based on who's doing the suing.


Kazaa etc... Slim chance of multi million settlements on this one, sue away they are milking the loophpoles of Russian law

"In answer to Dianne So .... does offer/sell/whatever copyrighted works?"

Unlike P2P file sharing sites like Kazaa, probably one of the biggest pirates sites online, just working a loophole

Okay, Remo; thanks. I just

Okay, Remo; thanks.

I just took a look; they do seem to offer downloads of artists' copyrighted works. And they're selling them, too.

The works available from are protected by the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights" and are for personal use of a buyer. Commercial use of such material is prohibited. Recording, copying, distribution on any media is possible only upon special consent of a Rightholder. Legal info

I'm not impressed. They're selling things that don't belong to them.

I guess there are loopholes, and then there is doing the right thing.

Slim chance of multi million settlements on this one,

This is over a Trillion dollars... roughly the cost of the Iraq war to date..


allofmp3 has already lost suits but since they only stay in russia they laugh at them. Nothing new for them.

This is all good for the

This is all good for the advancement of music distribution, and I am glad to see someone big enough pushing the industry to update itself. It will be good for all of us.

However, the hidden story here is how the US financial cartels have acted to prevent the use of allofmp3 by simply denying your credit card approvals. That's your financial agent, regulated by law to properly act in your interests, choosing to prevent you from buying from allofmp3 for no valid legal reason.

That's the crime. The Allofmp3 guys have done their homework and built a very successful business. The financial cartels have not; they are abuding the people to get/keep/exercise economic power.

uuuuhhhhhhh..... no. The

uuuuhhhhhhh..... no. The only loophole that they are hiding behind is being in russia. If stealing pushed an industry forward, thanks to shoplifters, the cosmetic industry would be landing us on Mars.

What Steve Marks said.And:

What Steve Marks said.

And: even if credit cards could be used at (which I haven't verified either way), the idea of communicating with and trusting my credit card information to an outfit selling stuff they don't own, let alone from another country where this behavior is apparently protected, doesn't hold any appeal for me. Zero appeal.

I don't get what the big deal is, anyway. Music CDs are available from more trustworthy sources, where the financial benefit goes to the proper parties. We own lots of music and movies on CDs, DVDs, and video- and audio tapes. Easy enough to buy them at Amazon, or the local Costco or other store, or -gasp!- the movie studio or band site. What's the huge benefit of going outside of the proper channels?

There is such a thing as ownership. And I'd far rather see that I traded my money to the parties involved for their goods, as it goes to support those whose artistic works I found valuable and desirable enough to want to acquire them in the first place. And encourages them to create more of the same.

what john (the webmaster

what john (the webmaster formerly known as ted leonsis) said. that is the real crime, and a violation of the principal-agent relationship.

as for "ripped off" artists: IMO they should concern themselves more so with realizing that new business and profit models are needed and that now is an exciting time to capitalize on these changes. the mentality of self-victimization rarely does anything besides giving cynical folks like me something to laugh at.

That may be true,

That may be true, kidmercury. But it happens elsewhere: articles get copied; websites get copied. Same problem -- they're being ripped off -- but that type of thing *may* affect some of us too. ;)


New business models may indeed be needed in these changing times, but Copyright is Copyright. Period!

kidmercury, if you would, please be so kind as to supply us all a list of all your websites to be plundered and copied at will. Per the intended new business model, maybe we might think of a new way to recompense you, someday, um, possibly, if we can think of one, or even get around to thinking of one. In the meantime, please don't feel "ripped off" because that is not the intention. The new business model is just around the corner, or the next one, or the one after that ... Really. Cross my Heart and all ...

everything i've published

everything i've published online that i own the copyright to is CC-BY licensed, you're free to copy as you like. :)

as for new business models, they are emerging and developing. to use the example of music which was brought up in this thread, artists can distribute their music for free, build an online fan base, and get increased ticket and merchandise sales. there are already a number of artists doing this successfully, and the trend is only going to continue. IMHO the answer to the RIAA is going to be found in finding a way to profit from a different property rights model.

that is an example of how we are moving from a product economy (make money by selling products, like software or informational products) to a service economy (using products as an ad for your service). at the end of the day, most people want full control over their informational products. IMHO fighting with the customer is not a preferred strategy. i'd much rather focus on how my intellectual property can be used to sell a service.

before google came along lots of people thought there was limited or no money in search. why invest in something that was all about sending the user away as quickly as possible? it seemed logical to doubt the potential profitability of search, but as google proved, the business model was right around the corner....

Kidmercury, I've built

Kidmercury, I've built websites for a few artists, and it's one thing if they (or someone with whom they've contracted) sell their products and quite another if someone else does so without authorization or recompense. That's all that was being said here, really.

From what I can tell (cursorily, to be honest), I am unsure that has proper contracts, licensing, etc. with the artists whose products they're selling.

I bought something off allofmp3

I bought something off allofmp3 maybe 2 years ago. It was ok and they didn't reuse my credit card data. They could not build a successful business by cheating their customers, so I don't think that is much of a risk.

Let the person who never listened to a copied mp3 cast the first stone. I bet you're sitting there right now listening to some tracks you downloaded off limewire or which a friend put on a CD for you.

Even though it's unfair to the publisher this is a case of the needs of the many being greater than the needs of the one, and there is no common desire to solve the problem.

I guess I get to cast the

I guess I get to cast the first stone. I not only am not listening to downloaded tracks, but have never downloaded any illegal tracks. No peer-to-peer; nothing. I'm happy pay for what I want -- that is, I'll give for what I get. It's the principle of exchange.

I think this is the unfortunate type of discussion where there will be no convincing some people that perhaps their approach might be lacking, and I'm not really trying to convince them.

But I will say that the fact that *perhaps* this lawsuit might not be successful has nothing to do with right or wrong. You never know, for instance, whether Russia might be encouraged to revisit its policies or, perhaps, to join the rest of the countries who have adopted the copyright conventions.

And using "the needs of many" as an excuse to cut into someone's livelihood really won't fly. Let's just call it what it is. If the "needs of many" mean that someone doesn't get paid for his/her work and doesn't get to enjoy the fruits of his labor, then that basically equates to a type of slavery or, at the least, agreed-upon thievery -- and the fact that people seemingly agree that it's okay doesn't mean that it is. Personally, I stay far away from taking or buying "hot" goods.

P.S. I think it's important

P.S. I think it's important to be able to respect the rights and property of others.

And it kills me that these types of discussions often center around something that is cheaper than a decent meal at a restaurant.

Hey, I want a Ferrari. I can't afford one. But I am neither considering stealing one nor buying a stolen one. Nor do I imagine that Ferrari & Co. will one day discover my sad plight and think: "What? No Ferrari? Poor woman -- let's send her one!"

No -- if and when I get my Farrari, it will be because I can afford to walk into a Ferrari shop and say, "I want that one."

Hear Hear!

Hear Hear!

Do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you.

As a child I 'helped myself' to produce from a neighbours garden - until my mother sent me back to confess, apologise, and do yardwork of equivalent value.

It taught me the value of things in time rather than the price in money. Time that can never be recovered, that is simply gone, past.

The FUD and reprehensible luddite behaviour of conglomerates and their manifold associations, i.e. RIAA, are not valid excuses for fraud, theft, or copyright infringement.

Differences in laws and regulations between countries are commonly exploited for personal benefit. Very human. The internet and near instant communication point out the discrepencies sooner and louder than times past. Until universal compatibility we have the rules of our individual legal jurisdictions and our individual moral/ethical beliefs.

I will not allow that it is permissible to take, without appropriate recompense and explicit permission, that which is mine; mine through my effort, skill, knowledge, and, most especially, my time.

Reciprocity holds I must grant others similar courtesy, similar privilege, similar rights. It is only civil, the foundation of civilisation.

I stand with DianeV and Woz against pillage and plunder.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good copyright.

Heh, well I guess I am alone

Heh, well I guess I am alone then. They should come and sue me. I am obviously the only person in the world who ever didn't pay for some of my music. There really are no other peers, I own all the 4 million PCs on Kazaa.

I also photocopied more than 20 pages from one book in the library once and lent a video of a TV program I copied off the television to a friend. Ah, and I've played music so loud that the neighbours can hear (copyright infringement also, did you know?). Public enemy number 1, obviously (rolls eyes)

filesharing vs. selling copyrighted music

I originally had a lot more to say on this subject but I'd rather not get banned for trolling. So, in summary:

  • = bad bad bad
  • file sharing (in general) = new business environment which can allow for some extremely sophisticated and successful viral marketing if leveraged properly.

It's an important distinction which I think is being blurred in this comment thread.

This may make me unpopular, but I'd suggest that filesharing is just another form of word-of-mouth marketing, as old as recorded media itself. This behavior is unstoppable, because it is reinforced by everything we know about human nature and network theory. Any alleged profit loss should realistically be written off as a legitimate marketing expense. It's the cost of doing business; specifically, it's great viral marketing.

I know marketers are all about making a buck (duh), but would you rather have a transparent, credible business model with long-term profits or an uncool, fast-buck operation with all the sustainability (and appeal) of an abscessed injection site?

Hmm, on second thought, I guess it depends on personal predilection. Still, don't get me started on iTunes... bleah...

Okay, I'm not getting paid to post comments. Time for me to go make money spamming the internets.


1.65 trillion sounds like a good, round number to me. Go for it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.