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."
$$$ is King (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as people are willing to shell out the $$ for the crap they keep shoveling out, not much is going to change.
Max Headroom all over again. (Score:3, Interesting)
So it seems like the controversy if the rights to the TV series may actually be a facade that's used to avoid citizens to be too well-informed about the dark future that lies ahead.
Who cares how it's 'described?' (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither description covers everyone. But saying that a recording artist wants to "force" people to pay for the entertainment they're providing is a lot like saying that a movie theater wants to force people to actually pay for a ticket on their way in to see a movie. It's absurd. No one is forcing you to listen to a recording, and no one is forcing you to see or hear any other performance, either. Don't be a consumer of it, and no need to pay for it. Except, of course, those countries that are insane enough to think it's reasonable to levy taxes (and thus, literally force people to pay) which are then spread around to artists - whether or not the people paying the taxes would ever want to be entertained by those artists or not. That's the only "forced to pay for entertainment" that it's worth talking about. Otherwise we may as well talk about how grocery stores are forcing their customer to pay for what they want, or how a chef is forcing his customers to pay for the creative services she provides.
Don't use the word "force" when it doesn't apply. Don't want to pay for Bruce Springteen's latest recording? Then don't acquire it, unless HE chooses to give it to you.
Re:Death throes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:5, Interesting)
And an innocent man has nothing to fear from the Police... Good luck with that.
The issue is not that people who download music without paying for it should get given a lollipop and a pat on the back.
The issue is that people who are accused of downloading music should get a fair hearing, the chance to defend themselves (mistakes do happen) and face a punishment proportionate to the "damage" done to industry and society by their "crime".
They should not be faced with a "Hobson's choice" of "Confess, and pay this meerly ruinous fine - or defend yourself and hope your parents don't mind selling their house & one of your little sister's kidneys if you loose."
So how much damage is done? Well, look at your CD collection: how of them are only there because, once upon a time, someone gave you a tape (remember those?) or MP3 of the artist, and when their next album came out you bought it? Hmm...
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll admit TFA doesn't make it obvious, as they seem to be against copyright or something, but
Are you really that naive?
The RIAA (or MPAA? I always lose track) has, so far, sued 12-year-olds, people who have never used a computer (and don't know how), people who are dead...
Frankly, I don't care whether who they catch, or how guilty they are -- they are the worst example of a "fishing expedition". I honestly don't know how they "catch" people, but I suspect they just throw a dart at a phone book or something.
I'd have to look up the exact article, but yes, there have been cases where universities have bought subscriptions to services like Napster or the Zune Store in order to provide students a place to legally download music, on the assumption that without providing this service, students would illegally download music.
NO. WRONG ATTITUDE.
Why should the universities have a responsibility to turn over their students? Especially on practically no evidence?
I'm sorry, but this is pretty much like saying "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists." Refusing to cooperate doesn't mean you're suddenly taking the other side, or that you're "covering up" anything, or, indeed, that there is even something to cover up.
In particular, if an IP-address-to-student mapping is considered private, I'd say you need more than "Well, 50% of college students pirate -- oh wait, I totally pulled that number out of my ass, but give me their names anyway!"
Same song, different verse? (Score:3, Interesting)
More and more, the RIAA war on download piracy makes me think of the government's war on drugs. Not a perfect analogy, but think about it:
One war spends vast sums of money to interdict a tiny percentage of illegal drugs, while overall use continues to rise. The other war spends vast sums of money to sue a tiny percentage of illegal downloaders, while overall downloading continues to rise.
Both wars target users who do not consider what they are doing to be immoral or wrong, and who will likely continue their activities despite any laws passed against them.
Both wars have generalized popular support from Mr. and Mrs. America, who are ignorant of or blind to the tactics involved and the overall futility and low success rate.
Both wars snag innocent people in their dragnets. If you happen to share a house with someone who has drugs, you can be arrested. Likewise, if you happen to own a computer on which someone else downloaded copyrighted material, you can be sued.
Both wars are stubbornly persistent and deny reality. The government refuses to acknowledge that legalizing and regulating recreational drugs would result in less crime, fewer overdoses, and far more money available for treatment and prevention and education. The RIAA refuses to acknowledge that digital technology has made their system of distribution and compensation rapidly obsolete and in need of a quantum change.
I could go on and on, and y'all could probably come up with some of your own parallels. The only real difference is that being caught up in the war on drugs can land you in the slammer for a long time, while illegal downloading will not.
Yet.
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:3, Interesting)
True - of course - although some organizations seem to be particularly creative in exploiting the flaws in the system!
However, there's also the related propaganda campaign to promote casual copyright infringement as a crime against humanity. Don't be surprised if the next special DVD edition of Se7ev is re-named 8ight and features a new horrific scene in which a gibbering victim is found strapped to a table with iPod phones superglued into his ears and an inferior quality 'torrent download of "The Best of Boy Bands" on infinite loop...
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)