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."
when (Score:1)
when will the courts realize that big business is assaulting citizens.
why can't anonymous declare war on the RIAA, they are a far bigger threat to society than Scientology.
"steal, steal, give it to all your friends, and steal some more...they're ripping people off and its not right" - Trent Reznor
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4 [youtube.com]
Re:when (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (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:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a HUGE NIN fan. Huge. Like most NIN fans, I'm getting older, but even so, I still try to hit at least one show per tour (usually more), and have basically everything Trent has done.
But here's the thing. NIN is a well-known, well-loved band with a rabid fanbase. Would I pay $5 for a new NIN album? Yes yes yes. Probably more as a "tip" for all the years of what I consider great and powerful and beautiful music. I'm excited to see what he does with his new unsigned status.
This does not extend to
Re:when (Score:5, Funny)
Scientologists get angry, real angry. makes for better lulz. as they say...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ur, brain-please-read-comment-before-jerking-knee? Where on earth in that comment did I support infringing on RIAA's copyrights?
The strawman which you set up, upon which I was commenting, was "all non-RIAA musicians are homeless amateurs"? Your reply has very little to do with my comment, did you get confused and reply to the wrong comment or something? Ah, no, no such luck for you, I see you quoted me.
Let me analyze your reply vs. my comment:
Me:
$$$ is King (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as people are willing to shell out the $$ for the crap they keep shoveling out, not much is going to change.
Stranglehold? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
DreamWorks SKG (DWA), 2005: ~$40, Today, ~$25, Total Revenue 394.84, Gross Profit 77.71 (In millions of USD);
Sony (SNE) Total Revenue 77,989.00 Gross Profit 16,564.27 (In millions of USD);
Vivendi (Public, EPA:VIV) Net Profit Margin 25.91%
EMI Group plc Total Revenue 1,808.30 (US$3,599M), Gross Profit 738.50 (US$ 1,469.83M)
For balance,
Exxon Mobil Corporation (Public, NYSE:XOM) Total
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't bought a single CD or DVD since Sony/BMG put that root kit thing out. Not a one. Not going to either until this fix the problems in this industry. My form of protest to the way the music industry is treating their customers like criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that your boycott isn't doing any good since obviously you feel better for it. Just don't expect Sony to come knocking on your door
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it is, perhaps only by a little bit. Used to buy Sony PCs and Sony cameras. Last PC was HP and the last camera was Canon. Walk by Sony all the time now. Don't miss them either. Spreading the word too. Maybe not a lot, but I know I am not feeding the RIAA/DRm/Rootkit machin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A (rather unsatisfactory) link here http://batgwa.com/story.php?id=556 [batgwa.com] . Western media coverage has been scarce AFAIK.
I don't know how things are in the US of A, but what the police has done here is arresting unrelated people (the guy arrested was OBVIOUSLY just a random internet guy, and OBVIOUSLY he w
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If $$$ is King (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:True, but not as recent as you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, of course, you would be dead...
Re: (Score:2)
Although actually, I'd be interested to hear of a comparison between what percent of music is pirated and what percentage of cigarettes have not had their tax paid.
Similar situation?
Re:True, but not as recent as you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] - it is estimated that 25-30% of all cigarettes smoked in the [UK] country avoid UK taxes.
From the BPI [64.233.183.104] - 10% - estimated UK music piracy rate, of which Internet comprises of 5% of that 10% (yeah, thats 0.5% of the total population).
Maybe the RIAA/MPAA should move into cigarette taxation. Seriously, is 5% a major amount? Markets, Car Boot Sales & Street Vendors apparently contribute to 31% of that 10% (that
Re: (Score:2)
From their standpoint, I'd guess that they see the Internet as a larger expansion risk. Street Vendors aren't going to open up stores and move into major malls, but the web 2.0 epoch is upon us, and the internet shows a lot of potential for expanding that piracy.
Not that I defend them, it's just that I can see how they'd fall into the blunder of fighting the goliath.
Interesting analogy (Score:2)
Interesting choice. And a bad one...
Here's why: The bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms would never let you get that far.
It would be similar to making bath tub gin and then trying to go make a business out of it. They have a name for that. It's called bootlegging. Tobacco is in the same boat.
If you think the govt would let you "work" with tobacco in any way shape or form, other than farming it, you are kidding yourself. You need a license/permit/registration to even
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be looking at what... $50 a carton for Camels, and $10 to $15 a can for Rollies. You get 200 cigs in a carton, and you get 200 papers and enough tobacco to fill them in a can of Top (and 230 papers in Bugler). Brown and Williamson
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Death throes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (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 getti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the same token, when a large predatory animal starts being a threat where they were a member of society, they find the community no longer will do business with him and only has a party when he is dead.
He hasn't yet figured this out to fix lagging CD sales. Some of the labels are figuring it out. The RIAA radar is a hint for some.
http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com]
Being listed here is a bad dent in sales.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Incoherent article (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To a large extent it isn't. Compare the lists at user fed sites like last.fm with billboard lists; the overlap is not particularly impressive. Apparently the RIAA labels have yet to go payola on last.fm's ass. Perhaps they'll catch up eventually and screw those listings too, but as yet they only seem to influence them indirectly through other channel payola.
Why even download it "for free" if you think it's crap?
Well, apparently people
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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, 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: (Score:2)
(e.g. your MP3s are ripped from CDs
The RIAA wants to say that this is illegal, too. So being able to prove that isn't necessarily going to help when fighting them.
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:5, Informative)
Does it not work like that?
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the Samurai choice of Seppuku [wikipedia.org] or Jigai [wikipedia.org].
The actual effect of all these actions will only be that the record and movie industry will be more and more alienated from the public and that the public in general will either wait until some channel sends the film anyway or until it is o
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but that's more an issue with our legal system than an issue with the RIAA itself, right?
Any large corporation can threaten to sue, and given that simply taking a case to trial is prohibitively expensive for most people, the corporations have all the power. I don't like the RI
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, but that's more an issue with our legal system than an issue with the RIAA itself, right?
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 o
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Re:Scathing indictment? (Score:4, Funny)
It's pretty easy to gather evidence - so easy, in fact, I assumed the record labels do it. You just connect to a torrent, download the content to ensure it is infringing, and log time/IP address of all the other peers who are downloading/uploading.
You then take this evidence to court, and the court issues a subpoena for the recorded holder of the IP address (the university) to identify the person using the IP address at that time.
If record labels have enough evidence to get courts to issue subpoenas (they could easily gather this much evidence), and have a court-issued subpoena, I hardly call that "hardly no evidence". I also wouldn't say I have a "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists" attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you assume that most people won't dare to defend themselves, and that the costs of losing are small to you, then you don't end up being careful that you are only targeting those actually violating your rights. It's less efficient. (Of course, one who was ethical wouldn't star
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/
Re: (Score:2)
But of course, the real problem is that they obviously don't even go that far, most of the time, or how do you explain the lawsuits against people who are mentally or physically incapable of filesharing?
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: (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 popul
Choices we don't have (Score:2)
We often don't have that choice. There are plenty of DVDs that are not sold and cannot be played in certain parts of the world (no Battlestar Galactica season 3 in North America, for example). And here in Canada it's hard to buy major-label music for an MP3 player that's not an iPod. (Most of us think it's OK to buy and rip CDs,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy CDs anymore. I also don't download. I just don't give shit anymore. Entertainment is not a necessity, though it would be nice for some form of culture to actually exist. Unfortunately, with the slipshod way RIAA handles things in pre-litigation (I'm surprised they haven't tried to sue cloistered monks by now), there is still a chance that I will wind up getting sued.
Just a cursory overview (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just rephrase that a little. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not taking a position on whether downloading copyrighted music is right or wrong either way (although some fool will probably respond with an argument against the position I'm not taking) but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, "Meet the Spartans" is more entertaining that starting at my wall. If I have nothing else to do, I would enjoy it over contemplating my navel.
What I find really annoy
Re: (Score:2)
sure it stinks but everyone "must" listen to it to be "in"...
but then i guess the very concept of being "in" is foreign to people reading slashdot...
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: (Score:2)
On you campus, are hundreds and thousands of bicycles stolen every day, using facilities provided by the school to perform those thefts? No? If that was happening, do you think the school might be called upon to get involved?
Right... (Score:3, 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 deliv
Re: (Score:2)
They already thought of that. It's called public education [cantrip.org]. Nothing like a bunch of passive people who think that staying informed isn't very important to hinder something like that (although I would love to see it happen myself).
War on this war on that, war on you (Score:5, Funny)
Going for the masses (Score:2)
The music industry is one of a few industries that struggles with technological breakthroughs. A car maker will
Re:Going for the masses-YEAH, RIGHT! (Score:2)
Yeah, right. Where are my Jet Fuel Igniters to replace those old-fashioned spark plugs. And my lifetime windshield wiper blades that are so easy to find in the aftermarket. But most of all, I want the 200 MPG carburetor that the oil companies have been suppressing for all these years!
please adhere to the rules for comments... (Score:4, Funny)
Why do people get worked up about this? (Score:2)
The providers of it offer it for sale.
You can buy it if you like.
If you don't like the terms, or the seller, or something, the answer is extraordinarily simple - don't buy it. This won't kill you. You can live without music.
We have laws saying you can't steal stuff. What do people think is special about music that you should be able to steal music in contravention of this general principle? (If you don't believe in the general principle please let me know where you live
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is possible to copy music, so that I get music for free, without depriving anybody else of their music.
(If you don't believe in the general principle please let me know where you live and I'll come round and help myself to all your stuff.)
If you have a magic wand that can create perfect duplicates of my stuff without depriv
Nothing new except the RIAA is very aggressive (Score:2)
At the time also, Digital Audio Tape (DAT) was in its infancy and there was
The big record labels know their music is crap (Score:2)
The big record labels know (most of) their music is crap. That's why they don't offer free, reduced quality, 30 second samples. They know that if sampled, most people will decline to buy. They'd also decline to download. I wonder just how many downloads people make end up being deleted or simply ignored because that's when they discover it's crap. I also wonder how many people who find something they like end up buying it from a legal source (but aren't do this as much as in the past just because they
Re: (Score:2)
You want the free sample? Turn on a radio. Go to Amazon.com.
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:Same song, different verse? NOT FOR LONG (Score:2)
Not if the RIAA has it's way. They'd prefer criminal sanctions, including significant jail time, for "piracy". And in some cases now, the MPAA in particular, has gotten that (for releasing bootlegs ahead of their opening dates).
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: (Score:2)
Well, not that garbage either.
Well, what do I buy? I download first and buy cd's to fit the collections I cant easily download. Now, my music selections is eclectic, so I search for a while before I buy.
As of now, I've bought 2 cd's from Japan by the group known as Ali Project. Jinsei bimi raisan (praise of delicacy of human life), seishoujo ryouiki (domain of the holy girl), and sensou to heiwa (war and peace) are my current favorite songs.
There's tons of ali project vids on youtube if one
Re: (Score:2)
To be sure, there's a lot of foreign crap too, but, in any case, at least it's different. So much of what we hear is so similar that it's boring. I guess "formula music" sells, so that's in what the record companies invest. Perhaps much of all music is formula to some extent, but the foreign formula is just different enough, to our ears, to make a difference.
For better of worse,
Re: (Score:2)
---
Well, of course the RIAA is selling fewer units per capita. The number of media choices competing for the a person's money is far greater than it has ever been. The RIAA is blaming its dwindling share of wallet on piracy instead of the fractionalization of the market. They can sue 20,000 people and that won't change--the proof being they did and it hasn't.
This isn't a big deal... (Score:2)
Don't Forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I believe that monitoring software was released by the MPAA, not the RIAA.
Good Thing I Don't Have Mod Points Today (Score:2)
!Biased? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea of leaving college students alone in the hopes that they'll eventually buy the music themselves, but I have a mjor problem with the basic principle behind DRM (which, at the moment, is the only way I know of to get the music to expire effectively) and therefore can't get behind that idea.
And yes, the RIAA as a whole is having issues, litigating when they should be innovating and all. Want college students to download less music, or at least buy much of it? Find a new medium that can't be re
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, they already offer that service. Napster.com gives you access to unlimited music for $15/month. It uses Windows Media DRM (not cross platform) and you lose access as soon as you stop paying. If you don't like that i
How about free via advertising? (Score:2)
The problem is that, mostly, whatever I downlo
Re: (Score:2)
to 'force "consumers" to buy what they're told to buy -- corporate "content," Where is the force?
It gets sillier...
From TFA..
"...Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG and their RIAA is trying to sue students into buying 'product'."
So the articles suggests that if you don't buy their product, they'll sue you. Such a conclusion is more than a bit ridiculous, no?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)