What we really meant . . . in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20090566 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:53:29 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:53:29 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20094040 moonpuppy :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

said by newview See Profile :

quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"


Translation:
We haven't figured out a legal way to screw the artists completely and keep all the money for ourselves.
No. they don't know how to divvy up the money. The fines collected were not tied to music downloaded on specific artists. So, how do they decide who gets how much? No matter how they split it, some artists are going to feel they deserved a bigger piece of the money than other artists. I'd bet money that that is what is holding everything up.
And I thought you were smarter than this.

All you have to do is look at the records and see what songs they accused people of downloading. If that song was part of the complaint, then that artist gets the money. Of course, if record keeping wasn't so good, then that could be another case. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20094040 Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:23:35 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20093492 Ahrenl : Almost all of this money was from private settlements through there telemarketing/direct mail centers though. There's only been one case to see court if I'm not mistaken. A few handfuls of those were reported to have severely incorrect information, so who knows how poorly the suit selection process actually was. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20093492 Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:18:37 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20092522 jwersan :
said by newview See Profile :

quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"


Translation:
We pulled the numbers we used to sue people out of our A$$, and now we have no clue what we owe anyone, or even if we owe anyone at all. We were intending to keep all the money for ourselves.
I fixed it for you. :D
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20092522 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:56:52 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20092144 bear73 :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

said by newview See Profile :

quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"


Translation:
We haven't figured out a legal way to screw the artists completely and keep all the money for ourselves.
No. they don't know how to divvy up the money. The fines collected were not tied to music downloaded on specific artists. So, how do they decide who gets how much? No matter how they split it, some artists are going to feel they deserved a bigger piece of the money than other artists. I'd bet money that that is what is holding everything up.
Sorry TK, but I think you are WAAYY off here. For each count that the RIAA took an individual to court for, they had to have a song/artist name. So for each settlement, they have a list of the infringements. Then its a simple percentage math.

The Fat-Cats are just stalling to either make money on intererst, or to swindle teh artists.
If the RIAA tries to say that most of teh money offsets the cost of litigation, then they are REALLY screwing around people. They said they were getting the money in the name of hte artists. The legal fees were just the cost of business. AT BEST all they can claim for themselves is the same percentage they take in direct sales of media (be it downloads, CD sales, or such)
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20092144 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:39:21 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091554 yock :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

The fines collected were not tied to music downloaded on specific artists. So, how do they decide who gets how much?
They should have figured that out before collecting the fines.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091554 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:25:43 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091538 Skippy25 : They should because if they had to take you to court for it they would have to have specific songs that you were distributing. The court rarely works on broad terms and with this it would certainly require specifics.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091538 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:22:06 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091319 dualsub2006 : But they do know how to divvy that money up. Every one of these cases is filed with a specific list of songs that were discovered on the defendants computer. You can't sue someone for copyright infringement without naming exactly which work was infringed.

The RIAA and the artists know exactly where the money should go.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091319 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:34:39 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091194 SalesGOD : Your argument holds no weight. For the RIAA to file suit against you, they need to know the title/artist of the song you had illegally on your hard drive. The have to provide that to the ISP and the court to process the suit. The RIAA has a complete list of which songs were downloaded. They know who the money belongs to. They are just being money-grubbing hounds. They are screwing over the artists that they say they are protecting.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091194 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:05:58 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091188 MeKuN : Exactly what i was thinking. Wonder what kind of interest you could get off 400 mill. Sorry we dont have all the 400 mill in one place we have it diversified in our RIAA portfolio. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20091188 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:03:52 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090925 r81984 : I agree.

They are probably trying to hold out as long as possible to make money off the $400 million before they have to pay it out.
--
»www.ryanoneill.us]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090925 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:56:11 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090856 jbob :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

said by newview See Profile :

quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"


Translation:
We haven't figured out a legal way to screw the artists completely and keep all the money for ourselves.
No. they don't know how to divvy up the money. The fines collected were not tied to music downloaded on specific artists. So, how do they decide who gets how much? No matter how they split it, some artists are going to feel they deserved a bigger piece of the money than other artists. I'd bet money that that is what is holding everything up.
Honestly I bet they don't care. They certainly have to know what songs were "Distributed"(I'll not use the word downloaded) otherwise they wouldn't be able to come up with a money value settlement to begin with. To begin with they can only attempt suits against song sharers who's artists were with RIAA which not all artists are. Thus some songs are off limits. I'll bet it has gotten to the point where they(RIAA) does not keep a database of who's songs where shared/settled thus negating the money split. The artists depend on the RIAA to help them but in actuality they are simply trying to line their own pockets. Many artists are already being screwed by the record labels as it is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090856 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:42:04 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090754 major marco :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

said by newview See Profile :

quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"


Translation:
We haven't figured out a legal way to screw the artists completely and keep all the money for ourselves.
No. they don't know how to divvy up the money. The fines collected were not tied to music downloaded on specific artists. So, how do they decide who gets how much? No matter how they split it, some artists are going to feel they deserved a bigger piece of the money than other artists. I'd bet money that that is what is holding everything up.
Oh please - that argument is cliched and clueless.
--
The Toll

Let's Go Flyers!
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090754 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:19:42 EDT Re: What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090688 GOLFnSUN :
said by newview See Profile :

quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"


Translation:
We haven't figured out a legal way to screw the artists completely and keep all the money for ourselves.
No. they don't know how to divvy up the money. The fines collected were not tied to music downloaded on specific artists. So, how do they decide who gets how much? No matter how they split it, some artists are going to feel they deserved a bigger piece of the money than other artists. I'd bet money that that is what is holding everything up.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090688 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:05:33 EDT What we really meant . . . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090566 newview :
quote:
"the money has just been delayed due to the complexity of figuring out how to divvy it up"

Translation:
We haven't figured out a legal way to screw the artists completely and keep all the money for ourselves.
--

Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20090566 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:38:50 EDT