digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at arstechnica.com

Richard Marx (!) attacks RIAA after $1.92M Thomas verdict

arstechnica.com — Jammie Thomas-Rasset was held liable to sharing 24 songs, including one by pop crooner Richard Marx. But the lawsuit wasn't done in Marx's name

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 25, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

240 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Nekura20x6, on 06/24/2009, -3/+522If Richard Marx really wants to do something about this, he should contact the RIAA and ask them when he is going to his share of the verdict money. (This is all for the sake of the poor artists, right?) The second they stonewall him or say they're not paying, he needs to go on a talk show tour publicly calling them out.

    People need to understand that this is all about lining the pockets of the RIAA and has nothing to do with the original creators or even the rights holders.

    I agree that artists are getting screwed out of their royalties, but it's the recording industry that RIAA represents that is mostly responsible.
  • frsrblch, on 06/24/2009, -1/+157Something I've been wondering about is how they intend to actually collect said $1.92 million from this woman. The fine may as well have been a billion dollars for all it affects her ability to pay such a lofty sum.

    How could such a fine actually be enforced? Do they intend to take everything from her, and force her family into poverty, or will they try to extract the money over the rest of her life? In either case, it sounds like nothing more than economic slavery.
  • MrBabyMan, on 06/24/2009, -2/+142He will not see a dime (or at most, perhaps market value--99 cents) of the $88,000 they've charged Thomas-Rasset for his song, I guarantee. This is a desperate extortion racket cooked up by the RIAA to prop up a dead business model.
  • magus_melchior, on 06/24/2009, -2/+108Lining pockets? Maybe, but the RIAA is insane (as in, Darl McBride of SCO insane) if they intend to continue litigating-- civil cases like these are not cheap, and the amount of time spent on their legal counsel alone could render the damages payout moot. Not to mention, Ms. Thomas doesn't have the money.

    IMO this is much more about intimidation and making an example of someone. "We got a nearly 2-million dollar judgment against a downloader. It can happen to you," they want to tell other downloaders. Conversely, they want to tell the artists (and more likely, their shareholders) they rip off that they're getting millions of dollars from people who "steal" their work.

    Neither of these claims is true, of course.

    The more the big labels can keep the focus on the "sue the downloaders" brouhaha, the more they can sweep their near-monolithic and incredibly abusive ownership of the music production process under the rug.

    That Marx is coming out to condemn the verdict is encouraging, but it isn't nearly enough. It's not about greed, musicians, it's about control. Think about it the next time you try to do something on your own (like promoting or distributing your work on Facebook) while signed to a major label. They will rip out your nuts.
  • wake2wake, on 06/25/2009, -2/+103I thought he physically attacked RIAA, that would have been a better story.
  • kurtwinter, on 06/25/2009, -1/+84To put this in perspective - $1.9 million is the kind of verdict normally associated with wrongful death cases. So you'd would have less exposure you killed someone with an insured car than put less than 128mb of MP3s on a fire sharing app.
  • acknotSW, on 06/25/2009, -0/+80The laws used to go after this woman were not written for this purpose. They were created to prevent companies and corporations from abusing each other’s copyrights for profit or in an attempt to damage a competitor. That is the reason for the huge fine, there is legal precedent for such fines in the corporate world. When these laws were written no thought was given to what to do about a private citizen who created an infinite supply of a copyrighted work and distributed it for free all over the world.

    Are the media companies being damaged by this, I have no doubt that they are; but complaining about it is a waste of time. The world has changed and their products value has dropped dramatically as a result.
  • avatarpalin, on 06/25/2009, -5/+83Now if Radiohead, NIN and about thirty to forty other bands kick in to hold a benefit concert and the proceeds going towards the payment of the judgement. I sir would get on a plane and fly to that gig no matter where it is.

  • Dou6, on 06/25/2009, -1/+73What a stupid judge, a woman's life is about to be ruined over that song, and all he can do is try and be witty...screw him.
  • ChiaGod, on 06/25/2009, -4/+52One of her kids should go on TV and make the following announcement:

    The whole world now knows... my mom, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was extorted, for sharing 24 mp3s, three days ago. This is a recent photograph of her. Mom, if you're watching, we love you. And this... well, this is what waits for the Lawyers that extorted her. This is your extortion amount. One point nine million dollars in unmarked bills, just like you wanted. But this is as close as you'll ever get to it. You'll never see one dollar of this money, because no extortion will ever be paid for my mom. Not one dime, not one penny. Instead, I'm offering this money as a reward on your head. Dead or alive, it doesn't matter. So congratulations, you've just become a two million dollar lottery ticket... except the odds are much, much better. Do you know anyone that wouldn't turn you in for two million dollars? I don't think you do. I doubt it. So wherever you go and whatever you do, this money will be tracking you down for all time. And to ensure that it does, to keep interest alive, I'm running a full-page ad in every major newspaper every Sunday... for as long as it takes. But... and this is your last chance... you return my mom, alive, uninjured, I'll withdraw the bounty. With any luck you can simply disappear. Understand... you will never see this money. Not one dollar. So you still have a chance to do the right thing. If you don't, well, then, God be with you, because nobody else on this Earth will be.
  • nard3456, on 06/25/2009, -2/+50***** THE RIAA!
  • inactive, on 06/25/2009, -2/+47I was saying the same thing to a friend a few days ago. Especially since Green Day, who *supposedly* writes politically-themed music about corporate evils, is supposedly one of the bands that was being shared in this lawsuit. You don't see those ***** coming out to say anything, do you? Regardless, a benefit concert from the bands who ACTUALLY do something about it would be an incredible act of compassion from real artists who don't care about the money.
  • HonoredMule, on 06/25/2009, -0/+41...which is what asking for his share will put under a spotlight, making it all the more worthwhile. If I were him and it were *well* within my means (I really have no idea what kind of money he lives on today), I'd publicly offer to pay the $80,000 that was charged for "my" song.

    (And then I'd use my new-found limelight to subtly promote my work.)
  • drmangrum, on 06/25/2009, -0/+40They won't. It's about sending a message. They'll take all she has, she'll file bankruptcy and she'll have a hard life for the next decade or so. She might try to appeal again, but it probably won't do any good. At this point, she might as well firebomb the houses of all the RIAA lawyers and execs and get off on a crazy plea.
  • Cyberdactyl, on 06/25/2009, -0/+32Historically, I would have thought the RIAA’s single biggest public relations and economic blunder was shutting down Napster’s free P2P servers.

    But this asinine nonsense could top it.

    Let's look back.

    Napster WAS the 'Google' of P2P. They owned 95+% of the file sharing community throughout the US and possibly the world. The RIAA could have. . . SHOULD have . . worked with the music industry and Napster. Napster could have been the best, single source, marketing tool opportunity the industry had ever seen. All that was needed was to require members to share simple information such as demographic, general geographic location, interests, etc. it would have provided a plethora of critical marketing information. The RIAA then should have worked to curtail only the most egregious abusers. . those SELLING copyrighted music, etc.

    Instead the RIAA took a bat to the bee hive, scattering the so-called “file sharing criminals” to the winds. Now, instead of a single valuable source of marketing information, they now deal with several P2P apps and billions of files flung to the wind. Example. . . the RIAA INSPIRED torrent technology.

    Now with this judgment, it has alienated the music industry's customers further and at such a searing level, that many would not purchase music even if it was EASY to do so (ah la .99 DLs). . .

    RIAA has hurt the music industry far. . .FAR more than little Jammie Rasset wanting a few copies of favorite songs.
  • acknotSW, on 06/25/2009, -0/+30This is the kind of case that usually takes place between corporations were million dollar judgments are the norm. She got screwed over pretty badly by laws that were not intended to be used against private citizens.
  • Travelsonic, on 06/25/2009, -0/+28IMO, still doesn't give them the right to claim they are suing in the name of the artist when that is blatantly false.
  • uberduger, on 06/25/2009, -0/+27Ohhhh.... Of course. Ransom! Man, I should watch that again. (Kinda reminds me of the bit in SWAT where the French guy offers, like, $100million to the person that frees him and suddenly every gang in the state starts planning how to bust him out. Ridiculous but awesome!)
  • Jektal, on 06/25/2009, -0/+25There's only one problem with that idea: It means the RIAA would actually get paid. They'll never collect $2M from Ms. Thomas
  • ramilehti, on 06/25/2009, -0/+25Why encourage them by paying?
  • MacEnvy, on 06/25/2009, -2/+26You intend to download music by Richard Marx?
  • theaceoffire, on 06/25/2009, -0/+24Because it isn't a movie? Its a 3 - 5 minute song?

    If you add all the songs together (assuming 4 min per song, 26 songs), it is 104 minutes, with no special effects or video.

    Yet those 104 minutes with no video is worth $1,920,000 while a longer movie with special effects and extras is worth only $250,000.

    This is retarded, even if you accept the idea that $250,000 is a reasonable cost for "My little Pony 12".
  • duewydo, on 06/25/2009, -0/+23" firebomb the houses of all the RIAA lawyers and execs and get off on a crazy plea."

    ooo' I like the sound of that!
  • mock, on 06/24/2009, -1/+23heh, awesome, richard.
  • MacParrot, on 06/25/2009, -2/+24Unfortunately he probably doesn't own (and never did) the copyright to his own music. The label most likely does. Look at almost any artist and you'll find that they don't own their earliest works as they usually sign them away for a record deal.
  • nutzngum, on 06/25/2009, -0/+22i'm thinking it was Ransom w/Mel Gibson...he sics the public on his kid's kidnappers...
    /i'm not being smart nor am i trying to be sarcastic. i was reading through and thinking "I know that premise from somewhere..."
  • smileyman2002, on 06/25/2009, -0/+21Er--the song list is the very list that Jammie Thomas-Rasset was sued for.
  • billizm, on 06/25/2009, -1/+21***** the RIAA.
  • uberduger, on 06/25/2009, -0/+20This was beautiful, thanks. Probably a movie reference that I'm not getting, but it made me feel good either way.
  • ChiaGod, on 06/25/2009, -0/+19Hint: It's a Mel Gibson movie...
  • wallclimber, on 06/25/2009, -4/+23It's a nice gesture by Marx, though it's surely an empty one.

    What's really amazing though is that even he got it wrong, as far as what the verdict was for...it was for *making available*, not downloading. I just wish that someone in the news media would get it right. It's sad that even the musicians have been so brainwashed as to believe that anyone has ever been found guilty of downloading.
  • Tarkaan, on 06/25/2009, -2/+18I will be right here waiting for the final verdict of this one.
  • cosworth99, on 06/25/2009, -0/+16I'm ashamed to share the screen here with anyone who actually thinks PAYING the RIAA money is a charitable way to help this lady out.

    Say you live on a nice beach. And one day a giant Great White shark parks his ass 30 feet from shore. You and your children love swimming. Why on ***** GOD'S GREEN EARTH would you chum the water you fools!?!
  • Jektal, on 06/25/2009, -1/+17Because we all believed those FBI warnings were for preventing commercial piracy, not sharing?
  • R3publican, on 06/25/2009, -0/+15He won't stop until he's satisfied.
  • acknotSW, on 06/25/2009, -1/+15I wouldn't go, but I sure as hell would donate.
  • itanshi, on 06/25/2009, -1/+15The pirate party does not condone illegal downloads, but changes to laws that help both consumers and artists alike.
  • Sirocco, on 06/25/2009, -2/+16Haven't you heard? Being a Marxist is popular these days!
  • HeavyWave, on 06/25/2009, -1/+15Green Day singing about corporate evils is like Bill Gates singing about hardships of poverty.
  • skektek, on 06/25/2009, -0/+13The most probable course of events:
    1)She appeals the judgement:
    --A)The judgement is overturned. She goes home happy.
    --B)The judgement holds:
    ---a)She files for bankruptcy and her assets are protected.
    ---b)The RIAA has what it wants (the ruling) and settles with her for little or none of the awarded amount.
  • NiftyG, on 06/25/2009, -0/+13I'm sure they'll tell him he'll get paid as soon as she pays them the $1.92 million (which will probably be never).

    If she actually does pay, his take will be minus lawyers fees, court costs, RIAA fees, handling fees, etc. They way these people do accounting, he'll probably wind up owing them money.
  • bat-21, on 06/25/2009, -0/+12No. Richard Marx does own all of his own material. His father is a jazz musician and owns a jingle company. Marx started out as a successful songwriter, musician and backup singer for others (Lionel Richie, Madonna, Kenny Rogers, Chicago). He was very familiar with how the music industry works before starting his solo career. His first hit single, "Don't Mean Nothing" is about how sleazy the industry is.
  • 1x253, on 06/25/2009, -3/+15I've been listening to music for over forty years and this is the first time in my life that I can say I don't hear a damn thing I like. The major labels have never produced ***** product at any time in their history than they are producing right now. And the "classic rock" format places all the ***** music of whatever artist they're pimping. You'll never hear Hendrix's "Long, Hot Summer Night" or "Rainy Day, Dream Away"; instead you hear "Purple Haze" (worst song he ever did, except the Noel Redding songs) for the millionth time.

    Independent music that you'll never find on the radio (used to be able to, but our Pacifica station was hijacked by the fake left) is the only thing worth listening to now. It's time for the major labels to just accept that they're going to have to be satisfied making their money off of their old artists that will continue to sell into the future. Their business model is over and their product is passe and contrived and doesn't reflect the actual culture here. It's imposed culture... and that's not culture at all.
  • MurtazaJamali, on 06/25/2009, -0/+12I remember reading an interview with Richard Marx in which he actually recalls putting a fan to sleep at one of his concerts. I like guys who can make fun of themselves.
  • jaaames, on 06/25/2009, -0/+12Thomas-Rasset, she's married now.

    And no, she may not have $2M to pay, but that doesn't mean they can't take her house, car, children etc. until it is all paid for.
  • Rutje, on 06/25/2009, -0/+12I think the biggest problem of all, is not the RIAA displaying vulgar juridical power, but the fact that the USA has a legal system that can make you go free for things like murder, war crimes etc and has huge punishments for minor 'crimes' like file sharing....
  • billizm, on 06/25/2009, -0/+11I forgive your link malformation. But do not let it happen again. You cannot paste HTML in digg comments and expect them to render.

    For those that do not know, this is the very music list that this lady got sued for.

    Also, for those who do not know, just copy the URL from this list and take off the double-quote at the end, and the link works.
  • RegimeUnchanged, on 06/25/2009, -9/+20I have newfound respect for Richard Marx. But I still intend to download his music without paying for it.

    Vive la Pirate party!
  • moxley, on 06/25/2009, -0/+10I applaud your selflessness - but personally, if I were to donate money I would never donate money to be used to pay these ridiculous judgements - never...that's basically paying their extortion demands.

    I would donate money to help pay legal fees for them to fight against this *****, but I would never give up and actually give these corporate extortionists their ransom.
  • pigfister, on 06/25/2009, -4/+14EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN, GET YOUR CHILDREN TO EDUCATE THEIR FRIENDS, EDUCATE YOUR FRIENDS, DO NOT PURCHASE ANYTHING FROM ANY OF THE ASS HATS THAT RUN THE RIAA/MPAA ECT.


    lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.

    Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the ***** capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.


    RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:

    # Sony BMG Music Entertainment
    # Warner Music Group
    # Universal Music Group
    # EMI

    MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:

    # Sony Pictures
    # Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
    # Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
    # The Walt Disney Company
    # 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
    # Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)



    ====================================================================
    If payola wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:

    Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.



    RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
    http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...

    "With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326 ...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 243 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.