Uni Students Slammed For Music Swapping 437
jomaree writes "The SMH Online reports that Sony, EMI and Universal will be in the Federal Court today, in an attempt to stop students using uni computers to swap music files. Michael Speck, the director of Music Industry Piracy Investigations, is quoted as follows: 'And we're not talking about one track here, one track there,' he said. 'We're talking piracy, significant examples of piracy.' By contrast, Sydney Uni says it knows of one student with a handful of files on a website, which does actually sound quite a bit like one track here, one track there."
Good for them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Uni? (Score:3, Insightful)
cooperation is mandatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, great. BSA-style enforcement that tosses the ol' "guilty until proven innocent" mythos out the window. The alarmist in me wonders how long it'll be before consumers are forced to prove their compliance with copyright, or submit to "music collection audits".
Absolutely! (Score:3, Insightful)
People are always arguing that piracy is somehow reasonable, because "if only there were music available at the price I WANTED to pay, I would buy it, and I wouldn't have to steal it". Try this argument at the convenience store: "I think that bottle of malt liquor is only worth 10 cents, and if you won't sell it to me for 10 cents, I'll steal it". It doesn't work that way. Over the past several hundred years we have replaced the rule of the mob with free markets, which ensure an equitable price for both buyer and seller through the natural interactions of supply and demand. The availability of free stolen products, of course, undermines this market and makes content production ultimately impossible. Some efforts of this type may be necessary initially to restore the rule of law: But remember, if you don't like this kind of intrusion, the best thing to do is stop pirating music right now, let this culture of piracy be destroyed, and allow a market-based system of online music distribution to be established. Once this has happened, heavy-handed enforcement will be unnecessary, and everyone will be able to get what they want for a fair price.
Quit picking on the poor students... (Score:5, Insightful)
Says the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties:
"I don't think there is any benefit to the community in prosecuting individuals who do this as a one-off. I mean, we'd have half the students in Australia in jail."
I totally agree. As long as these students are not making money by trading this music, this seems like a real cheap shot. Before you know it, they are going to prosecute college kids for putting a quarter on a string and getting their laundry done for free.
On the other hand, SHAME ON YOU TODAY'S COLLEGE STUDENTS! If you're going to be engaged in these illicit activities, at least make a minor effort to hide your tracks. That's what college is all about ;-).
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:The article talks about shutting down (Score:3, Insightful)
Universities are major RIAA/MPAA targets (Score:2, Insightful)
Universities, OTOH, aspire to higher ideals of complete freedom (else all of us students would protest, at least in theory). Hence no threat from the University IT department, for the ones that haven't capitulated to such RIAA blackmailing.
As a result, a very large chunk of filesharing traffic originates or ends at university IPs. Hence they make the perfect RIAA target. Its fairly logical.
We just have to hope that universities don't give in to this kind of blackmailing. The question of threatening a student's freedom is much larger than that of stopping some of them from taking part in illegal acts.
not just about money (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA's accountants know that their profits have increased in the past few years. The RIAA's lawyers know that their profits have increased in the past few years. But there are people out there that are not using officially sanctioned music in officially sanctioned ways at officially sanctioned times with officially sanctioned equipment. That means there are people out there who are not under the control of the company, the mythical "consumer." This cannot be tollerated.
Microsoft has been making money hand over fist for two decades. Someone installing WinME on three of their computers when they bought one copy is not doing them any harm. If anything, it means fewer copies of Win98 in use, which means less old stuff for them to support. That's good for them. But it means that there are people out there not using the product in the officially sanctioned way on the officially sanctioned number of systems. Microsoft (and Bill Gates in particular) simply cannot deal with the concept of someone not using the product on their terms.
All of that goes back to one of the fundamental flaws in the capitalist mindset: The consumer. The mythical consumer is not a person. The mythical consumer is a machine that stands on the other side of a cash register and accepts input (products) and returns output (pictures of George Washington). They can be reduced to a mathematical equation of supply and demand. They can be manipulated by marketing. They can be made to fit into nice little cells on a spreadsheet. In short, the consumer can be controlled.
It fits nicely into the whole financial theory. Passive object Consumer (C) is convinced by active object Marketing Department (M) to purchase passive object Product (P), created by passive objects Employees (E) under the employ of the active object Owner (O). Add it all up, and you get a nice tity profit (n) for the Owner.
(C + M) + P(E) = O(n)
(A very efficent method, eh?)
There's just one problem: Not all human beings are passive objects C. Humans are not a mathematical equation. The equation works when it is not possible for a person to function otherwise. You force them into playing the role of C or E, and the equation comes out nicely. Everying is predictable, profitable, and controllable.
But as soon as something comes along that threatens the stability and controllability of that equation, panic mode sets in. The printed book would be the death of learning. TV would be the death of radio. VCRs would be the death of movies. DAT would be the death of radio. Cable would be the death of movies. E-books will be the death of learning. The Internet will be the death of civilization. And so on. A little control slips away, and the end is nigh, defend the System to the last lawyer.
No one likes uncertainty (except possibly Shrodinger), and no one likes surprises (except at birthdays). It's not your money that the RIAA or the MPAA or Microsoft want. It's your passivity. They want to know that you can be controlled, not because they want power or greed or world domination but because then you are predictable, and they can wrap their minds around something predictable. Everyone likes things to be predictable. Everyone likes knowing where their next meal is coming from.
So what do we do? Don't be a consumer. Don't be passive. Don't be swayed by marketing. Don't be a part of a machine, however well intentioned and genuinely useful it is (and it is). Most importantly: Don't take your business elsewhere. That doesn't work, it only makes your life more difficult. Saying "we'll just use open source software" doesn't do anything about the continued growth of draconian attempts at regaining control with their collateral damage. Turn and take the issue head on, at its core level: The law.
Would they stop printing books? (Score:2, Insightful)
Likely yes, and most definately no.
If people put music online, would the record producers go out of buisness? Would people stop making music?
Hopefully yes, and hopefully people would stop making bad music.
So who are the only people standing in the way of a revolutionary step in education? Darwin's corporate bastards
Re:This is just wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
That's just wrong.
error in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Should read:
Re:Good for them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely! (Score:5, Insightful)
All things considered, I'm paying the RIAA for copying music, ergo any song I download and burn should be considered paid for.
Oh, and for the record, once again:
piracy != theft
Theft=larceny [reference.com]
The owner is deprived of nothing tangible. There are still just as many CD's on the shelves as there were yesterday. And if all goes well, there will be plenty of crap CD's left on the shelves as people continue to revolt on the monopolism, scare, and crush tactics of the RIAA and their brethren
Re:Quit picking on the poor students... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for them. (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think these two are mutually exclusive? The university, ideally, should be fighting to control their computers, in service of its students, as they wish without outside influences
Do you really think devulging personal information, sniffing packets, and reporting this to an outside authority without a warrant is good? Do you really think DRM will be put on hold because some student gets busted as an, "example?"
I seriously doubt it. This is one of the many hard-armed tactics the record companies use. Its not a solution and certainly does not make DRM less appealing to the PC and content industry.
Re:Would they stop printing books? (Score:3, Insightful)
What have they done, to make you hope that the record producers go out of business?
Forgotten economics (Score:1, Insightful)
Robbing implies that something is taken. College students by nature dont have much money. A poor college student wasnt going to buy the cd anyways, so their are no lost royalties. Furthermore, the artist will make money in the future when the college student goes to the artist's concert. That's what the industry should focus their efforts on. Making money from things that cant be duplicated (although I guess they're trying to make cds like that)
By the same logic.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is getting ridiclous. The record labels are not police, and even the police cant take you to court without a warrant and reasonable evidence. The univs should counter sue, after all i bet there will be enough lawyers!
Incredible claim (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you trying to imply that unauthorized file sharing almost never occurs at universities? Don't make me laugh! At least in the United States there are uncounted gigabytes devoted to this activity. Many universities have had problems with network bandwidth due to file sharing. It's a lot more than "one student with a handful of files"! How credible do you hope to be when you make claims like this?
Re:Absolutely! (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you saw the price of music DECREASE besides when all the hair bands went into the discount bin in 91? There isn't a free market in the music industry, there is a price fixing cartel of less than a handful of companies that collectively control most of the music that gets put on shelves.
Basically they're going against a smoking type arguement. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you and can have serious consequences, and that music swapping can lead to jail time. If they had made smoking down and out illegal though they would have forced everyone who smoked into an us versus them midnset and pretty much pissed off the general public of "don't kick the common man" mentality. This is exactly what the music industry has done and continues to do, furthermore they shamelessly promote and profit from filesharing in their other corporate faces. It makes them look like asses, and stupid asses at that. Sony Music basically says "don't do anything that our other division, Sony Electronics, makes easy with their huge sales of portable mp3 players." With that kind of corporate logic it's hard to take them seriously.
Re:Pirates taking food from my kids mouths. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just think, if most artists today did this, then there'd be nothing left to pirate and we wouldn't be in this position.
I love the psuedo-intellectuals.. (Score:3, Insightful)
what i don't understand is why so many people are using their considerable talents and intellect to create arguments FOR, and technology TO rip off some of the most harmless people in this country- musicians. Way to go, guys, hurt a group of people who do no harm to the environment or society, and have done nothing but enhance your lives.
I can't believe the demonization of the musicians in general, so everyone can not only feel not guilty about music piracy, but you can convince yourself that you're doing a valuable public service as well.
so let me ask you, MP3 traders, you who are so socially conscious, do you know who is really ripping you off for their own diabolical ends? [exxon.com] Why aren't you going after who's really in control of money and powerin our country? [texaco.com] What are you doing to thwart them?
it's been proven that when the music industry rips people off intelligent, comitted people can make them pay for it. [musiccdsettlement.com] That's how you do it, that's how you make a real change.
when you're done with the record industry what are you going to do steal from the 'real' man? [mobil.com] oh that's right- nothing...that would take effort and commitment, and let's face it, making a REAL change in this world just isn't as fun as watching your downloads complete.
Warez by any other name...
Re:not just about money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a poor arguement. While I agree with the sentiment expressed, it is entirely inapplicable to our RIAA/MPAA controlled entertainment industry, and IP in general. I'll explain.
The idea of a free market applies only to unregulated goods and services. If I patent an idea for providing a good or service, I am temporarily granted power to veto "free market" ideals for the term of the patent. This is so that I have an advantage to capitalize on my exclusive right to a certain good or service. After the patent expires, free market is restored, and anyone may compete with me on price and product.
Copyright works similarly. Unlike a tangible good or service, dissemination of copyrightable material has always been simple. To encourage creation, competition with creators is "temporarily" suspended. Culture is asked to hold its breath while the economics play out. The free market is suspended, and that "product" may not be aquired anywhere else. Ordinarily this would not be a problem, as an artist could shop around for a better publisher deal for themselves and their fans. The music publishing instustry is oligarchious, however, and runs a racket. [I will not defend this here.] Free market is suspended to give creators an advantage, and their advantage is suspended by an economic force.
I'm deeply in favor of federal laws that encourage a free market. Present copyright law suspends that market, and RIAA efforts to expand it further are deeply anti-competitive. With whom are they competing? They're competing with the public, and with the force of digital publishing. The RIAA must win legal control of digital publishing, or it will die. I hope and pray to God that it dies. Rent-seekers are a drain on the American culture and economy, and this rent-seeker controls 90% of our music.
Also, it's pretty fucking arrogant of these recording companys to think that University students would be more interested in Christina Augilera's singing (boobs) than historical music and speeches from periods and places they are studying. University students are classically (and vocally) disdainers of engineered culture [i.e., Monkeys, N~Sync, Linkin Park, Britney]. I'm disgusted that due process and presumption of guilt is suspended so that this dying organization can work its venom.
I think the RIAA knows that a more decentralized and artistic-centric industry is aching to be birthed from their ashes.
Re:not just about money (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the possesive adjective. Yes, it's perfectly within their rights to control their distribution channel.
The University's internetworking uplink is not the RIAA's distribution channel, but the RIAA wants jurisdiction over it. Let's forget that part, for the moment. I have something much better to say.
I have absolutely no problem with the RIAA trying to control their distribution channel. They have absolutely no right to control my distribution channel. The RIAA's biggest fear is that people will realize how ever-so-fucking-little they need the publishers now. If the RIAA can control digital distribution channels [mine, yours, your school's, the government's...], then it's their distribution channel, and you still need them.
My sentiment is "Fuck off", I've got a Free Market to engage in.
Re:error in the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I guess they could go to Warner Musi... damn, same contract.
I know! They could go to Epic an... FUCK!
Classically, it's called an oligopoly, and can thought of as an oligarchy. Under Free Market laws, it's called a Cartel. As an artist, if you want exposure, you have the same choice under a dozen different names.
Re:error in the article (Score:4, Insightful)
A farmer in Bangladesh needs money to buy seed, signs a contract with the moneylender that makes his family indentured servants until he pays it back, which he cannot because of the ruinous interest and the low prices the moneylender (who is also the only grain purchaser) pays. He agreed to teh terms, no one was ripped off, justice prevails.
Legal != just.
Not clever on the part of the music industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah sure at present student live on 10 $/euro/pound/drachma a week, and 98 % of that goes on drink and mind altering substances, but the students of today are the consumers of tomorrow (and the next day and the next day), or that is they will be if they don't get butt f#$@$ked left right and centre for making there spending money go a little further.
Compare the record companies approach to that of the credit card companies (stolen or otherwise). CC companies allow relatively high amounts of abuse on the part of students as the are in it for the long run, they know that the dreadlocked Muppet in front of them now will some day come, cap in hand looking for a credit extension for what ever....
Of course the record companies could say that by the time these "cyber pirates" start to put their money where there mouth is the out-moded business model they now use will be part of every business 101 class on how NOT to do business.
A few posters mentioned why don't the Uni(versities) get behind the students, if their uni is anything like mine (www.dcu.ie) then students are a necessary inconvenience that must be tolerated in order to continue to receive revenue to fund the construction of white elephantesque structures, what seats and space in the library, naw we don't think that is needed.
Re:Forgotten economics (Score:4, Insightful)
College students by nature dont have much money. A poor college student wasnt going to buy the cd anyways, so their are no lost royalties.
This oft-repeated argument has got to be the biggest pile of steaming dung that I have heard. Poor, starving students sitting in their $5,000 dorm rooms, sharing music on their $2,000 computers, all the while ignoring their $10,000 education, are always complaining about the price of $15 CDs.
I, for one, am not afraid to admit it. I have pretty much stopped buying CDs, not because of file sharing but because I already have 300 or so. I reckon I bought half of those -- 150 frigging CDs -- while I was in university. A lot of those I bought used. A lot of them were Christmas gifts. Some of them were purchased with money I earned by working. Yes, WORKING!!!
And you know what? The money I paid for those 150 CDs still doesn't compare to the cost of one semester of tution.
If I hadn't been an honest person, the music industry would have lost out on over $1,500 during my college days. Please don't ignore the fact that a lot of people don't particularly like concerts. They tend to be expensive, the sound quality is usually poor, and the musicianship is often inferior to the album. I have spent much more on CDs than I ever would on concerts.
-a
Re:cooperation is mandatory (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, while riding a bus or train in sydney, you often have to prove that you are not riding illegally or face a minimum fine
I'm assuming you mean you need to show a ticket. That sounds fair to me - if you don't have a ticket you are guilty. The rule is "if you ride the train, you must have a ticket" - there is no room for vagueness there, you either have or have not. It's the same everywhere else I've been in the world (including NYC, although their controls are easier to get around as they don't have tickets as such).
Also, when you leave any store in australia with bags that you entered with, often you must surrender them for a hand search to prove that you did not steal anything
Again it's similar in NYC - many shops there require you to hand over your bags for "safe keeping" before you can enter. Who knows what will happen while you are gone - did you get a reciept for the contents? There's no difference - if you don't want to be searched, or don't want to check your bag, don't go in the store.
I'd stop & think before assuming your country is so much better (or more "just") than any other.
Re:Good for them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and the first thing they should do is kick the bandwidth wasting hogs off. Some people are trying to use the network to do research, study - the stuff they're paid or paying to do. Not be hampered by those treating a degree as a three year holiday, and sitting in their rooms downloading music rather than going to lectures. It's yet another reason why the researchers are happy when all the students go away - the network speeds up noticeably.
Re:Federal Student Privacy Laws... (Score:3, Insightful)
Universities are not court systems. If the RIAA wants to prosecute a student for violating federal law, they can and will. FERPA cannot protect a student from being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and it also cannot keep law enforcement agencies from obtaining the information from the University given they have the proper warrants.
Re:Pirates taking food from my kids mouths. (Score:2, Insightful)
Uni connections (Score:2, Insightful)
At this rate of data you are getting ~600hrs of music or ~ 55hrs of film per day (~25hrs/hr and 2hrs/hr respectively). Which is obviously totally impractical for personal watching/listening purposes (not to mention the storage issues). The motivation for the release groups and sites is that they want to be seen as 'l33t' and get the releases of whatever it is they are interested in the fastest. Most of the stuff I dare say is deleted without even being reviewed.
My point, is that taking each student to court, especially those putting a couple of songs on a website is futile. If they encouraged the Uni sysadmin to run a few more bandwidth checks they would take out the problem at source (I dare say it's not hard to spot when one IP takes up several percent of the whole universities usage).
But don't tell them that,
I like watching futurama before it's aired
(I dare say 40GB a day is not the amount traded by the largest sites, but it gives a ball park, for most uni scale operations)
Re:Boycott CDs for a month (Score:2, Insightful)