A Look at The RIAA's War Against College Students

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "p2pnet.net has put together a fascinating retrospective on the RIAA's war against college students, commenced February 28, 2007. The campaign is described as one to 'force "consumers" to buy what they're told to buy — corporate "content," as the Big 4 call their formulaic outpourings.' In a scathing indictment not only of the major record labels, but of those schools, administrators, and educators who have yet to take a stand against it, Jon Newton reviews a number of landmark moments in the 11-month old 'reign of terror'. They include the announcement of the bizarre 'early settlement' sale, the sudden withdrawal of a case in which a 17 year old Texas high school student had been subpoenaed while in class during school hours to attend a deposition the very next day during his taking of a standardized test, the call by Harvard law professors for the university to fight back when and if attacked, and the differing reactions by other schools."

Re:Incoherent article

[eiapoce]

There are alternatives to "Big 4" music, unfortunately, sometimes the anti-RIAA crowds neglect to mention them.

Here you go: http://blue.jamendo.com/ [jamendo.com] free, legal and... sounds better.

Stranglehold?

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

The media and entertainment companies' stranglehold on a dying business model is hardly a stockholders' dream.

Warner Music (WMG) stock, 2006: ~$30, Today, ~$8.00; DreamWorks SKG (DWA), 2005: ~$40, Today, ~$25; CBS Broadcasting (CBS) 2000: ~$45, Today: ~$25.

The market conditions surrounding the film, music and broadcasting industries are incredibly volatile right now. I'll grant you that they're pursuing mostly counterproductive strategies in their efforts to stabilize themselves, and DRM + consumer abuse is hardly helping matters. Still in all, mere perception that (Is Media Corporation) == (Rolling in Money and Laughing Maniacally) is a gratifying mental image, but it isn't exactly the case.

Re:Scathing indictment?

[Dun Malg]

I was under the impression that you could go to court, demonstrate ...that there was no evidence of file sharing on your computer and you'd be let off. It should take an afternoon, and cost no more than a few hundred dollars, which the record labels have to pay after you are found innocent.

Does it not work like that?

Are you kidding? How much does your lawyer cost? How much does this impartial third party expert cost? How much many days off work does it take? Not a chance in hell you could get away only a few hundred dollars down. When the RIAA brings you to court, they're there for blood. They want you to pay their settlement, not challenge their assertion. They'll stretch it out till the end in an attempt to run out your money. And uless you can show they brought the suit basically knowing you were innocent, don't expect a dime's reimbursement for your costs.

Re:when

[xXShadowstormXx]

I find that to be a pretty good ratio

I must say, he really swings from one extreme - "steal, steal ... and steal some more" - to the other - ISP tax to do things normally covered by Fair Use. How bout we meet somewhere in the middle, Trent?

Trent never said he supported an ISP tax:

"I left the conversation thinking I'd cleared up the misconception that I thought the entire release of "niggytardust" was a failure. Well, it appears the story was written before I was involved, and I woke up the next day to find out I'm a supporter of an ISP tax. Thanks, CNET."

From http://www.nin.com/index.html#2882965178223012038 [nin.com]

Re:Scathing indictment?

[m.ducharme]

Erm, no it's not that easy, and costs more than a few hundred dollars. It's not like the RIAA lawyers are going to let you go into a courtroom and say "I'm innocent! See? No evil Kazaaware on THIS computer! They get "experts" to testify that someone at your IP address was downloading songs, and you need to hire your own experts to counter them or the judge rules for the RIAA and not for you. Here in Canada an expert witness runs about $2k for a written report and at least as much to appear in court for you for a day. I'm sure it's more in the US. so we're already over the $3k "settlement offer" the RIAA customarily makes, and we haven't even hired a lawyer yet. We have one expert (you'd be lucky to get away with one -- you need one expert for every one the other side has if you're at all serious about defending yourself), and one Defendant, representing himself or having a lawyer do the work pro bono. For one day. If you won your motion (the average joe probably couldn't afford a Trial, the lost wages alone would kill you), then you get to argue for costs, which means several more days in court, and you're not guaranteed to win. All this is assuming that the Plaintiff's lawyers aren't playing dirty, which of course is false. If one side plays a dirty game you can multiply the costs and time taken by 10, easily. Now all this is assuming the most bare-bones defence you can get, and if you go against the music companies with bare bones, you will get beaten soundly. There's no question about that. To mount a proper defence you would need a very good lawyer (this may be the cheapest part, given that there may be lawyers looking to make a name for themselves in this area of law, possible assistance from the EFF; a growing body of legal resources helps too), a battery of expert witnesses, buckets of money, and lots of free time. And don't expect to recover all your costs. You can expect to be out thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands of dollars, and that's if you win.

Re:Scathing indictment?

[ScrewMaster]

It should take an afternoon, and cost no more than a few hundred dollars, which the record labels have to pay after you are found innocent.

Do you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about? This is the American legal system we're talking about here: there are traffic tickets that cost more than a few hundred dollars. Defending yourself against a lawsuit (frivolous or otherwise) takes a hell of a lot more than that.