A Look at The RIAA's War Against College Students 159
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."
Death throes (Score:2, Insightful)
Incoherent article (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's really crap like you say, is it really worth listening to at all? Why even download it "for free" if you think it's crap? It just sounds like a sad excuse to download. There are alternatives to "Big 4" music, unfortunately, sometimes the anti-RIAA crowds neglect to mention them.
Scathing indictment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it is: If the content is so terrible, don't download it. As you will not be infringing on anyone's copyright, you will not get sued.
If the content is good enough that you want access to it, you either have to pay for it, or accept a small but nonzero chance of being sued and fined for copyright infringement.
I also don't see that universities need to cover for students engaging in copyright infringement. If you connect to a torrent of 'Heroes' or 'House' or whatever, your IP address gets recorded, and the copyright holders subpoena the university to know what user had that IP address at that time, why does the university need to 'take a stand against it'?
Now, I'd certainly agree that some stories on slashdot talk about inexplicably large fines being requested. And certainly innocent people who are wrongly accused should be entitled to reclaim reasonable costs for their defence. But to say students are being forced to buy record labels' music, or to say that universities have a responsibility to cover up lawbreaking by their students, doesn't really make sense to me.
In other words I found the article less 'scathing' and more 'worded emotively'.
Just my $0.02.
Just a cursory overview (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:when (Score:5, Insightful)
Realizing your true power as the consumer (Score:2, Insightful)
The day we use technology to unite in collective effort, disseminate intelligence and wisdom to dissolve ignorance and share a single intention then the consumer the citizen will take control as master.
The "Many", the consumers combined wealth far exceeds that of the "few" because the consumer delivers real value every day.
Many of those individuals or corporations that control vast wealth only do so because we perceive the fiat currency, the intangible symbolic units to have value. As soon as this illusion is destroyed their power is gone.
We the people control the cash flow of business and labor, the worker produces the products and services that make the world go around and this is where the real tangible value is.
We the people are very powerful, but we have been blinded to our own power by an illusion created by those that benefit from the current systems and don't want them to change.
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Popularity is a curse. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't. Wouldn't be caught dead listening to their music. However, there are a couple of factors you've neglected:
1) They sue the wrong people often enough. Remember that guy who didn't have a computer? I wonder if MediaSentry gave one of their boilerplate expert reports in that lawsuit? Because it would be really interesting if they had.
2) Anything popular is crap, according to simple statistics. That's a contradiction in terms, right? But a really good song might be liked by 80-90% of the people who hear it (the actual percentages don't matter, just accept those numbers as an example). So now we have 10-20% of the people who hear it who don't like it to some degree, a few of whom will likely hate it. Now realize that every song has a different percentage and that percentage is made up of different people. So the more popular you are, the more people there are who hate your music. In fact, the more people who hear it, the more likely it is that there are people who hate every single bit of music you've produced.
It may be counter-intuitive, but it's pretty clear that the more popular your music is, the more it's heard, so there are more people who hear it and hate it. It's the "Curse of Popularity"
There's a counter-point to this, too, BTW. If enough people hear an awful song, there's likely to be at least *one* guy who really loves it (probably the guy who wrote it). Thus, you have niche music that's horrible to most people, but which attracts a tiny fan following which absolutely loves the music. This is how you explain the Indee crowd.
Oh, and nothing here is exclusive to music. You can get the same thing with wine snobs, art, sex or anything else based on personal taste.
Re:Death throes (Score:2, Insightful)
These organizations may not survive another generation if they keep bullying the younger kids, but it won't matter to current CEOs at all; by then, they'll be rich and retired and possibly even already passed away. It largely won't impact them if we aren't going to do anything about it for 20 years, so why should they care? They're getting away with it so far. They may not be all that stupid; actually, somewhat smart, just very near-sighted and not very ethical.
They'd stop this nonsense in a heartbeat if a couple judges made a stand and said they owed millions for making a stupid lawsuit; that threatens their retirement in the Bahamas, and they'd rather lay off the lawsuits than loose their riches.
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I did say that some of the fines talked about on slashdot are inexplicably large, and that people who are wrongly accused should be entitled to reclaim reasonable costs for their defence.
I was under the impression that you could go to court, demonstrate (through inspection by an impartial expert third party) that there was no evidence of file sharing on your computer (e.g. your MP3s are ripped from CDs, or are from iTunes, or are distributed as MP3s by the copyright holders; and you don't have KaZaA or something installed with your MP3 directory shared, your BitTorrent client has only legitimate downloads running, etc.) 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?
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem (at least according to one semi-conspiracy-theory) is that there's lots of GOOD music on those Big 4 labels as well, but the labels don't respect what they "own." They'd much rather have people encountering music through avenues they basically own, like ClearChannel radio and MTV and big chain record stores. Why? Because bands that become popular on their merits will eventually figure out they can do without the labels, like Radiohead did, whereas artists that are totally reliant on the industry's marketing (like Britney Spears) aren't likely to stray from the flock.
>>I also don't see that universities need to cover for students engaging in copyright infringement.
The issue is that the RIAA isn't just using due process to get colleges to turn over IP records. They're trying to strong-arm universities into installing programs to monitor their students' internet downloads. For a lot of universities, this is seen as a bad idea on principle, since they want to at least seem "pro-free-speech." (They've got the free-speech zones and everything!)
Re:when (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:True, but not as recent as you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, of course, you would be dead...
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to save any kind of culture in the US is to stop buying or downloading anything. We don't have a real culture anymore because culture is now largely what RIAA and MPAA says it is.
Re:when (Score:4, Insightful)
I must say, he really swings from one extreme - "steal, steal
These guys made $140,000 in three months. If they used opportunities like the interview you linked to put out a positive message, those numbers could grow, maybe to the point where they could "cover the costs and perhaps make a living doing it." Hell, they could even partner with one of those evil record labels at a later data and release a physical CD ala In Rainbows.
Whining to interviewers that four fifths of the people who downloaded the album you put on your website "stole" it and proposing to tax everyone - even those who don't listen to pop music - doesn't entice me to buy - or steal - his album.
Re:True, but not as recent as you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the day? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps 'cause:
Sure, I use to buy music when I was younger, but I don't buy much anymore -- nor have I ever downloaded anything. I've purchased 3 CDs in the last 10 years. What I already have is either better than what's new, or I'm simply just happy with it. In the car, I either listen to a CD or NPR; commercial radio is crap.
Great music never goes out of style. Perhaps some of the younger crowd have music from their parents :-) I mean, would you really want to listen to "Oops, I did it Again" over anything in your parents collection? How about instead of a baby whining on an airplane - oh, wait, that could be Britney too.
Re:when (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, here's what the blog CastrTroy linked to has to say on that:
And here's the relevent quote, again according to the blog:
Is Trent saying that those are not his words? Because if they are, it sounds a lot to me like he's endorsing a tax on ISP use as a means of compensating artists, just like the tax Canadians pay on blank CDs.
The problem with these taxes is that they are levied against everyone, including people who don't "consume" Trent's music. They also penalize - and put at a disadvantage - those who use blank CDs or Internet connections in the running of their own small business or even the production of their own art.
It's great that Trent is out there talking about these issues, I just think he needs to take a more moderate point of view. Somewhere between stealing everything and taxing everyone, there is a solution.
Don't Forget (Score:3, Insightful)
No Mike, you're wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Mike,
this is where it all falls apart.
You can tell the *account* that has the IP address, but in many households, NAT'ing means at least 2, if not more, computers share that address. In my house, for example, there are 6 computers, and 8 people who share in IP address.
So you can't tell the person.
Can you file a civil lawsuit against the account holder? It may be possible, but the burden of proof, I imagine, is much higher. That's why for speeding/red-light camera tickets they fine the car owner, but not the driver. Primarily because they don't know who was driving. We have 2 cars and 4 drivers in my house. If a ticket shows up, it's hard for *us* to figure who was driving.
So the "evidence", in the most scrupulous of circumstances is at best unclear.
That's just another problem for the RIAA.
To recap:
1) The RIAA doesn't seem to be able to gather accurate IP information
2) Even if they do, there is no chain of custody, that is, there is no attempt to determine if you actually downloaded the song(s) they claimed
3) There is no chain of custody of evidence to show that you downloaded anything copyrighted
4) The RIAA cannot demonstrate they represent the copyright on any song they're suing you for
5) The IP address does not address the person who committed the crime.
Is that enough for you? Any one of those produce reasonable doubt in my mind.
Re:If $$$ is King (Score:3, Insightful)
Wold you buy more than $25 worth of music in a year if it was 5-10 cents/track?
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would characterize it as "no evidence at all". They have zero evidence that the defendant infringed their copyright. They have admitted under oath that their "investigation" does not detect any individual doing anything [blogspot.com].
The reason the judges have signed orders authorizing the subpoenas is because the proceedings are ex parte -- there is no opposition, no one even knows it is going on. I.e., the judges have been hoodwinked. Occasionally, though, some judges see through it [blogspot.com].
Re:Don't steal it. (Score:3, Insightful)