RIAA Co-Opts More Universities 305
southpolesammy writes "The Register reports that six more US Universities and colleges have agreed to enter into protection schemes with the RIAA. In short, several institutions have signed deals with the RIAA's lapdog, the Napster music service, to 'goad these schools toward becoming music brokers'. The underlying threat of being sued by the RIAA if they don't pay them off is almost certainly the driving force behind their acceptance of this scheme. And of course, there's the ever-present gag order they'll probably enforce on these new universities as well. Great business model guys. Way to engender yourselves to your biggest customer base."
Someone's gotta say it (Score:0, Insightful)
WHY.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Real nice network you got here... (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA just hit their highest sales, despite these mobster tactics.
lying [cnn.com] bastards. [wired.com]
I know someone at University of Miami. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder exactly how much student outrage would have to happen before the universities break down and withdraw from the napstery thing...
I certainly would have thought more of CORNELL, of all places, at least...
Disapoointing to say the least (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is preying on the lawsuit fears of universities in an attempt to gain a captive market of students that are forced to have Napster whether they want it or not.
Re:Biggest customer base? (Score:2, Insightful)
Business Ethics Alive and Well (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a terrific business model, what are you talking about? You think they don't understand that it's an implied threat? Why else would a university bite? Of course they know it's a threat, and they don't care if you think it's sleazy, what they do care about is how much of a threat the universities think it is. Damn right it's a threat, do you think anyone would pay them otherwise? It's a fine business model in a world where "business ethics" is not about "ethics" but what you can legally get away with.
Would the music industry actaully win? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a consortion of universities got together and fought this RIAA pressure would they be able to win? Remember the RIAA has never successfully prosecuted someone for offering music or providing network bandwidth unless this party had a commercial interest in the activity e.g. selling copies rather than sharing with friends (this is to the best of my knowledge). The black and white of the copyright laws say that the person making the copies is the one liable . . . wouldn't this be individual students? And not the university.
For example a public library is not liable for copyright infringement if someone photocopies a whole book on their photocopy machine. The person making the copies is the legally responsible party. This is exactly why photocopiers are now mostly self service in libraries (and even Kinkos). Because then the owner of the machine is not liable . . . wouldn't this work for universities? The owner of the machine (in this case the network) would not be liable for the actions of the people that used the machine (the individuals that are copying the music). Thus individual students would have to be prosecuted, not the university.
Assuming all this is true, I would hope that some university would stand up and fight the RIAA rather than rolling over and becoming the RIAA's B****.
Re:*Yawn* yes, the RIAA is bad. BUT, come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other part of the program that bugs me is not being able to keep the songs after graduation without "buying" them.
Once their four years at school are over, the students are cut off from Napster and lose all the music they've download. That is unless they pay 99 cents per song or $10 per album to own a permanent download that can be burned onto CDs or MP3 players.
In my mind, if I have already paid a fee to buy as many songs as I wish, why should I be required to purchase the same thing later? Will I have to re-purchase the iBook I just paid for using an academic discount when I graduate as well? I sure hope not.
our daily allowance of Timothy, in disguise. (Score:2, Insightful)
You forgot the side that endlessly whines about the music industry. Folks, if you don't like the music industry, don't support it, but for fuck's sake, STOP WHINING ABOUT IT. This isn't "News for Music Buyers", and RIAA shit certainly is not "my rights online", or anyone else's.
I care about the fact that I'm unemployed, that my taxes are sky-high(I made below the poverty line a year or two ago, but because I was self-employed, the government wanted HALF of that) and currently funding a war I don't support. To be honest, I don't give a fucking rat's ass about the music industry, and I don't think anyone else here really does either, save the people who post "but if they just did THIS..." Like the rest of the media industry, slashdot greatly overstates the importance of the music industry. If some colleges are too stupid to sue the shit out of the RIAA for racketeering, I couldn't care less. Nevermind it's pure conjecture on both the part of the slash submitter and the register- which is why there hasn't been a lawsuit. Duh.
I had to double-check to see if the article wasn't really posted by Timothy, because it smacked of his boy-who-cried-wolf-about-our-rights-but-it-was-jus t-the-music-industry bullshit. Wake me up when there's a legitimate threat to my rights, or real technology news. Not teenage "I wanna swap music" teenage angst.
Wtf do the universities have to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Streaming = Downloading? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obviously NO ONE CARES *enough* (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing that I'd like to add, is that the RIAA is a scapegoat. It was created as a shield so that certain unnamed companies who know that their consumers were going to be, for lack of a better term, pissed at their practices, could obfuscate themselves behind a handy acronym. While we're all having a giant tirade about how evil said organization is, we still go out and purchase products from these companies; they have done an absolutely phenomenal job in seperating thier legal heinousity* from their corporate image.
Just something to think about the next time you're bashing Xbox in favor of playstation.
*Yes, I made this word up.
Re:Would the music industry actaully win? (Score:4, Insightful)
You answer your own question. It has nothing to do with if they can win the suite, it has to do with how much the suite would cost the university to win. This is what extortion is about.
Re:*Yawn* yes, the RIAA is bad. BUT, come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
We certainly DO deserve music for free.
What crack are you smoking? (I want some!)
The only music you deserve for free is what you can whistle/play/sing yourself. If it ain't in the public record/artistic commons/similar licence and (C) is owned by someone who wants to charge for it then you should (and legally MUST) pay for it. Fair use as a legal construct only applies to limited use (i.e. educational setting, keeping your purchased media safe while playing a backup, etc.)
What really pisses me off is peoples' like you with their sense of entitlement. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED! (Unless you live in Canada where they already pay for downloads in a roundabout way)
Mod me a Troll/Flamebait/whatever But this is the reality.
-nB
Wise Guys, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what they're saying is: We, the all knowing and clairvoyant, RIAA know ahead of time some of your students will be guilty. We can't catch them all, but if you pay in advance, we won't sue you?
I thought organized crime was illegal? How is this any differenct from making sure some "guys" won't come along and burn down your house as long as you pay a "protection fee"?
Re:"Protection schemes?" (Score:1, Insightful)
Have you forgotten who really runs the music industry?
Re:Bye bye alumni donation (Score:2, Insightful)
Myth 1) You have no right to free music/movies/etc.
A: Yes, you do. Just not for 7-14 years. Now, this has been thrown off balance by illegal, unconstitutonal laws, bought and paid for with the money of grannies and welfare children. When a law is unconstitutional, you have no obligation to obey it. Why else do you think that several communities have been declaring themselves unwilling to abide by the patriot act? Same theory here.
Myth 2) Just because something is not in stock, doesn't mean you have the right to "steal" it.
A: If the RIAA doesn't want to sell me something I want at a reasonable price, damn right I'll "steal" it. Now, the pro-RIAA crowd will undoubtedly come back with shit like "well so does that mean that you can steal a BMW?"
No. But that's because a BMW is physical fucking property, and cannot be copied! If a BMW were able to be copied, would I do so, even if it were against the law? DAMN TOOTIN I WOULD.
You cannot protect your business model with artifical restraints, especially when your business model relies on information. You just cannot do it. You can legislate into oblivion, but as the saying goes, the more you tighten your grip...
Myth 5) The artists suffer if you don't buy their CD.
A: No, the fucks at the top suffer. I have every Iron Maiden CD on my hard disk. If I were to buy all of those - assuming I could find a copy among the stacks of Britney and 50 Cent - they'd see maybe 25 cents out of every cd. 24 x 25 cents = 6 dollars, for almost 2 decades worth of material.
Now, let's look at what I did - I went to a store, and I bought a IM tshirt @ 18 bucks. The majority of that is going to go to the band, not to some cigar chomping asshole in an ivory tower. In this day and age, CDs are nothing more than promotional tools, used to sell other stuff. The only ones who don't get the hint? Guess who.
Myth 4) The MP/RIAA members are poor, broke corporations who need your support to keep bringing you this material
A: The MPAA has nobody but itself to blame for decreased profit margins. They release shit, and their shit has been gettng more and more expensive every year. 100+ million for Chronicles of Riddick, a movie that only took in half that much? When it hits DVD, they might be lucky to break even! 25 million in acting fees for the talentless hacks in Gigli, a movie that made something like 5 million between DVD and box office reciepts?
If the industry wants to make more money, try taking some of that cash they use, and try these simple steps!
1. Reduce ticket and concession prices. 7 bucks for a matinee is robbery. I remember when it was 5.75. Let the industry keep the majority of ticket sales (as they already do,) and use all that fucking revenue you get from showing me sprite/fanta/scion/m&m commericals before movies to make your profit margins for the theaters! With all the advertising these fucks make us watch, the tickets ought to be free at this point if you make it in time to watch the ads!
2. Don't give individual stars 20+ million dollars to star in a 2 hour feature. Try to do the math. Unless you're dealing with a Lord of the Rings or similar style phenomenon, it's a big mistake to have one fifth your budget go to a single star, and another one fifth to go to your director. Yes, there will always be a need for blockbuster FX films, but EVERY FUCKING MOVIE doesn't have to be one. Smaller budget films with better stories and better scripts will make much higher profit margins than shitty eye candy, or at the very least, always make some form of profit! Of course, Hollywood doesn't want to hear that. They expect to put in 150 million and get back 200-300. They're not content to put in 1-15 million for a film, and get back 30-40! Chalk it up to greed.
3.Film people are about the only ones who don't take a paycut during a recession. Why not make them start? If they refuse, fine - say bye bye.
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's funny - several of these universities have openly admitted that they've bowed to the RIAA over 'fear of being sued'. Which I do believe meets your definition of 'protection racket'.
Kinda funny, to think that the record industry is run by a government-approved Mafia....
Max
Re:*Yawn* yes, the RIAA is bad. BUT, come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
What crack are you smoking? (I want some!)
If it ain't in the public record/artistic commons/similar licence and (C) is owned by someone who wants to charge for it then you should (and legally MUST) pay for it. Fair use as a legal construct only applies to limited use (i.e. educational setting, keeping your purchased media safe while playing a backup, etc.)
What really pisses me off is peoples' like you with their sense of entitlement. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED! (Unless you live in Canada where they already pay for downloads in a roundabout way)
Mod me a Troll/Flamebait/whatever But this is the reality.
Hi, you are brainwashed. We, the people, allow an artists a LIMITED ownership of his work. We LEND him ownership for a while so that he feels like producing more in the future. The arists gets to own his work because we LET HIM. We, the people, are the real owners, and we are entitled to it, as much as we are entitled to the air you exhale. That is how copyright was designed.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2, Insightful)
course required books are always at the school store, library books are populated by the librarians on a limited budget, thus many books are bought because of deals the librarians can get and are not always because of popularity.
No crappy book lobby here either, threatening lawsuits...
This on the other hand is giving a corporate entity a foothold in an institution of learning, which gives them yet another outlet to push their shitty music.
I think the main problem is that instead of creating something that people want and thus making money from it, they are limiting people to what they can get and then charging them for it.
Re:*Yawn* yes, the RIAA is bad. BUT, come on... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see who the loser is here?