Music Industry Pays $67M Fine For Price Fixing 511
Krelnik writes "Reuters is reporting that the music industry is paying a $67.4 Million settlement to end a lawsuit where they were accused of artificially inflating CD prices at retail. Yeah, P2P is causing their problems. Sure, sure it is. Here's the story at Reuters UK."
And at a board meeting, a single tear is shed.. (Score:5, Insightful)
hrm (Score:5, Insightful)
only 67M? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, it's only a settlement... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are just paying their way and donating CDs to certain organizations just to say drop the suit... that's it.
Priceless... (Score:5, Insightful)
No it won't! The suit was filed two years ago. $67.4M divided over all the CDs distributed by the labels ends up being fewer than pennies per consumer. At best, I'd expect little more than a $5 coupon off my next overpriced music purchase. The settlement also doesn't do anything to address future infringement.
and result in the distribution of a wide variety of recordings for use in our schools and communities."
Not under today's Fair Use [wired.com] laws...
Re:Where's my cheque? (Score:5, Insightful)
$480M vs $67M (Score:4, Insightful)
Well now we know what step two is:
Step one, rip off consumers.
Step two, settle out of court.
Step three, $413M profit!
fit penalty? (Score:3, Insightful)
In seriousness, it says in the article "consumers had been overcharged by $480 million since 1997." I don't know what the other details are, but it seems that the penalty is just a slap on the wrist since it barely adds to $200 million. Isn't that half of what they gouged? They still made off with a ton of cash. Where's the hurt?
Re:Drop in the bucket (Score:0, Insightful)
No it doesent (Score:5, Insightful)
$67M is a Joke. A single company could foot that.
Re:Dang I just submitted this, my 1 chance at fame (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great timing. (Score:4, Insightful)
I like this bold prediction from the article:
"Former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky said at the time that consumers had been overcharged by $480 million since 1997 and that CD prices would soon drop by as much as $5 a CD as a result."
Re:only 67M? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta love that logic.
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
So now the local indy shops that can't match the $8 a CD that the big chains can sell for will go under. They're already more expensive, but it just got pointless for them to even try.
It'll be like bookstores all over again.
Reuters = Good reporting (Score:3, Insightful)
Reuters should be commended for not confusing the issues.
Re:hrm (Score:5, Insightful)
I know if I were on the board of directors, I'd be asking for the head of the person who cost me this fine, and getting something signed in blood by the people who I can decapitate if it happens again.
And something like that is going on where the left hand paid the $67 mill, with regard to the right hand that caused the damage. This is probably the first time left and right hands have actually met in that organization. How fitting that it happens today, in a climate where suits begin to actually fear consequences of their actions!
Re:No No No (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MORON! (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, what's the point of paying $16 for 10 songs that of which only 2 are good.
JUSTaRESUMEpad (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
SO people complain when CDs are too expensive, but also when they are too cheap? The CD manufacturers no longer have any control over how much Best Buy et. al. charge for their CDs. The chains like that can afford to take a loss on CDs because their hope is to get people in the door and sucker them into buying some other, more expensive, item. The RIAA actually tried to get them not to sell their CDs at a loss, since it was hurting other CD outlets, but the chains took them to court and won. So you can either complain about the RIAA making prices too high, or the chains making prices too low, but you can't complain about both.
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
They will deserve their fate, which they have earned by continuing to treat their customers and talent with contempt.
Re:only 67M? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Remember, it's only a settlement... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am confused
Re:only 67M? (Score:4, Insightful)
$0.02USD,
-l
The irrelevance of money to the legal debate is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Must I continually point out that it DOESN'T MATTER if P2P loses revenue for the record companies - P2P file sharing is still (in most instances) WRONG.
I'm so sick of hearing people whine and moan about how P2P should be considered legal because the record companies don't lose money because of it (typically followed by an argument that illustrates that the industry has sold more music since filesharing that before).
I'll say it again: IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Philosophically, this is called an "appeal to a complex argument," and it's considered a logical fallacy.
Let me give a more blatent example:
Suppose you own a really nice bicycle, but you only ride it from 5-6pm. Now suppose someone from down the street comes and "borrows" your bicycle from 7:30-8:00pm, and returns it in pristine condition...you can't tell it's been used. Their borrowing of the bicycle without your permission is still WRONG. The bicycle is your property, and they used it without your permission. You could even take it a step further and say that it would still have been wrong if they left a $5 bill on the seat, because they still used it without your permission.
We, a crowd of people of whom many make their living generating intellectual property, should understand that.
Music is simply property. If you use it without the owner's permission, it's wrong.
Are they cutting off their own noses by disallowing P2P sharing? I think they are in alot of cases. But it's their noses to be cut off.
Re:Where's my cheque? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see the words "for free" in that sentence, but we're not writing a contract, so let's assume that it is implied.
Want to bet that the $75.7 million is at RETAIL prices? Since it probably costs the record industry about $0.25 to manufacture and ship each CD, and assuming for argument's sake a retail price of $16.99, it's really more like a total cost to the record industry of [$75.7 million / $16.99 retail * $0.25] ~= $1.114 million ~= a single record company exec's annual entertainment budget. Furthermore, they'll probably use production overruns and be able to write some of the costs off.
M$ Settlement and this one.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Would such CD's count as sales for the next Brainless Spears or N'Stink they are trying to push to the top?
Re:The other boot has yet to fall... (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be, but the problem with class action suits is that they are almost always brought in order to benefit the lawyers. It's rare indeed that the actual plaintiffs in such suits gain anything significant from them. Often the plaintiffs end up with a settlement that represents less than what they lost at the hands of the defendant. But the settlement amount is usually large enough that the lawyers representing the plaintiffs make enough to retire to a life of complete luxury.
Remember: the lawyers representing you in a class action lawsuit don't work for you: they work for themselves, and are just using you as a tool to gain for themselves insane amounts of money.
What that means in this case is that if the RIAA offers to settle early for $100 million, the lawyers will probably take the deal, because their cut will be something like 30% of that, and $30 million for a small group of lawyers is a lot of money if the amount of time it represents is small. They know that if they don't take the deal, the RIAA has the resources to drag the case out for decades if need be, so they'll take the deal. And the RIAA is thus still ahead a cool $300 million.
If there's another boot to fall, it'll be something other than a class action lawsuit. And if you want an idea of the likely long-term outcome, just look at the tobacco companies and how much they were "hurt" in the end (hint: not much) by the class action lawsuits.
Re:$480M vs $67M (Score:1, Insightful)
They want to hurt the consumer with overpriced records...if Wal-Mart happens to offer the consumer a better price then by all means let them. I always say, never take the side of a corporation unless it is in the favor of the consumer, and never let them take away our power, or knowledge. If there is a concern regarding Wal=Mart monopolizing the CD industry, it too will drive competition, and the independent stores can still survive off of lesser known works since most people will need to get their lesser known stuff somewhere.
The most important thing is that we don't let the corporation tell us what they want...we tell them.
Re:$480M vs $67M (Score:5, Insightful)
"The RIAA did not make a cent off the price fixing, as that had no effect on wholesale prices."
Then..
"won't buy the CD for our stores unless you sell it to us for $2 less than normal wholesale"
Erm.. so better retail price competition will affect wholesale price and yet wholesale price is not affected. Bravo!
Re:only 67M? (Score:2, Insightful)
Other cases: verdict=jury - jury sets punitive.
Re:only 67M? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad.
So they can sue hundreds of millions out of MP3.com for letting people listen to their own music, but when the record companies cheat consumers, they didn't do a thing wrong. Yuck.
Re:Great timing. (Score:3, Insightful)
It resulted in a 3 dollar increase in CD prices.
I wish I had a link to a historical reference to the previous lawsuit. I have plenty of faith that CDs will now cost nearly $25 apiece, esspecially as DRM starts to make a strong foothold in the marketplace.
The worst part is (Score:4, Insightful)
Legal File Sharing: (Score:2, Insightful)
Eventually, if everyone pitches in, you can "check out" whatever music you want to explore. If you like it, then buy it at the store and support the Artist. If you don't, rip it (in case you change your mind and decide you like it ;)