Slashdot Mirror
Uni Students Slammed For Music Swapping
jomaree writes "The SMH Online reports that Sony, EMI and Universal will be in the Federal Court today, in an attempt to stop students using uni computers to swap music files. Michael Speck, the director of Music Industry Piracy Investigations, is quoted as follows: 'And we're not talking about one track here, one track there,' he said. 'We're talking piracy, significant examples of piracy.' By contrast, Sydney Uni says it knows of one student with a handful of files on a website, which does actually sound quite a bit like one track here, one track there."
Australia's major record companies, Sony, EMI and Universal, are acting on suspicions that students, and possibly staff, are using the universities' computers to swap digital music files. The industry says the three universities have not divulged information, but that others have co-operated.
Ah, great. BSA-style enforcement that tosses the ol' "guilty until proven innocent" mythos out the window. The alarmist in me wonders how long it'll be before consumers are forced to prove their compliance with copyright, or submit to "music collection audits".
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Says the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties:
"I don't think there is any benefit to the community in prosecuting individuals who do this as a one-off. I mean, we'd have half the students in Australia in jail."
I totally agree. As long as these students are not making money by trading this music, this seems like a real cheap shot. Before you know it, they are going to prosecute college kids for putting a quarter on a string and getting their laundry done for free.
On the other hand, SHAME ON YOU TODAY'S COLLEGE STUDENTS! If you're going to be engaged in these illicit activities, at least make a minor effort to hide your tracks. That's what college is all about ;-).
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
It's not just an issue of money. It's a question of control.
The RIAA's accountants know that their profits have increased in the past few years. The RIAA's lawyers know that their profits have increased in the past few years. But there are people out there that are not using officially sanctioned music in officially sanctioned ways at officially sanctioned times with officially sanctioned equipment. That means there are people out there who are not under the control of the company, the mythical "consumer." This cannot be tollerated.
Microsoft has been making money hand over fist for two decades. Someone installing WinME on three of their computers when they bought one copy is not doing them any harm. If anything, it means fewer copies of Win98 in use, which means less old stuff for them to support. That's good for them. But it means that there are people out there not using the product in the officially sanctioned way on the officially sanctioned number of systems. Microsoft (and Bill Gates in particular) simply cannot deal with the concept of someone not using the product on their terms.
All of that goes back to one of the fundamental flaws in the capitalist mindset: The consumer. The mythical consumer is not a person. The mythical consumer is a machine that stands on the other side of a cash register and accepts input (products) and returns output (pictures of George Washington). They can be reduced to a mathematical equation of supply and demand. They can be manipulated by marketing. They can be made to fit into nice little cells on a spreadsheet. In short, the consumer can be controlled.
It fits nicely into the whole financial theory. Passive object Consumer (C) is convinced by active object Marketing Department (M) to purchase passive object Product (P), created by passive objects Employees (E) under the employ of the active object Owner (O). Add it all up, and you get a nice tity profit (n) for the Owner.
(C + M) + P(E) = O(n)
(A very efficent method, eh?)
There's just one problem: Not all human beings are passive objects C. Humans are not a mathematical equation. The equation works when it is not possible for a person to function otherwise. You force them into playing the role of C or E, and the equation comes out nicely. Everying is predictable, profitable, and controllable.
But as soon as something comes along that threatens the stability and controllability of that equation, panic mode sets in. The printed book would be the death of learning. TV would be the death of radio. VCRs would be the death of movies. DAT would be the death of radio. Cable would be the death of movies. E-books will be the death of learning. The Internet will be the death of civilization. And so on. A little control slips away, and the end is nigh, defend the System to the last lawyer.
No one likes uncertainty (except possibly Shrodinger), and no one likes surprises (except at birthdays). It's not your money that the RIAA or the MPAA or Microsoft want. It's your passivity. They want to know that you can be controlled, not because they want power or greed or world domination but because then you are predictable, and they can wrap their minds around something predictable. Everyone likes things to be predictable. Everyone likes knowing where their next meal is coming from.
So what do we do? Don't be a consumer. Don't be passive. Don't be swayed by marketing. Don't be a part of a machine, however well intentioned and genuinely useful it is (and it is). Most importantly: Don't take your business elsewhere. That doesn't work, it only makes your life more difficult. Saying "we'll just use open source software" doesn't do anything about the continued growth of draconian attempts at regaining control with their collateral damage. Turn and take the issue head on, at its core level: The law.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Should read:
Except I'm Canadian. I pay a rather nice premium on all the recordable media I buy, and they want me to pay more. I don't pirate music either.
All things considered, I'm paying the RIAA for copying music, ergo any song I download and burn should be considered paid for.
Oh, and for the record, once again:
piracy != theft
Theft=larceny
The owner is deprived of nothing tangible. There are still just as many CD's on the shelves as there were yesterday. And if all goes well, there will be plenty of crap CD's left on the shelves as people continue to revolt on the monopolism, scare, and crush tactics of the RIAA and their brethren
> Harsh, but preferable to some jerk putting DRM in my hardware.
What makes you think these two are mutually exclusive? The university, ideally, should be fighting to control their computers, in service of its students, as they wish without outside influences
Do you really think devulging personal information, sniffing packets, and reporting this to an outside authority without a warrant is good? Do you really think DRM will be put on hold because some student gets busted as an, "example?"
I seriously doubt it. This is one of the many hard-armed tactics the record companies use. Its not a solution and certainly does not make DRM less appealing to the PC and content industry.
By contrast, Sydney Uni says it knows of one student with a handful of files on a website...
Are you trying to imply that unauthorized file sharing almost never occurs at universities? Don't make me laugh! At least in the United States there are uncounted gigabytes devoted to this activity. Many universities have had problems with network bandwidth due to file sharing. It's a lot more than "one student with a handful of files"! How credible do you hope to be when you make claims like this?
This is a poor arguement. While I agree with the sentiment expressed, it is entirely inapplicable to our RIAA/MPAA controlled entertainment industry, and IP in general. I'll explain.
The idea of a free market applies only to unregulated goods and services. If I patent an idea for providing a good or service, I am temporarily granted power to veto "free market" ideals for the term of the patent. This is so that I have an advantage to capitalize on my exclusive right to a certain good or service. After the patent expires, free market is restored, and anyone may compete with me on price and product.
Copyright works similarly. Unlike a tangible good or service, dissemination of copyrightable material has always been simple. To encourage creation, competition with creators is "temporarily" suspended. Culture is asked to hold its breath while the economics play out. The free market is suspended, and that "product" may not be aquired anywhere else. Ordinarily this would not be a problem, as an artist could shop around for a better publisher deal for themselves and their fans. The music publishing instustry is oligarchious, however, and runs a racket. [I will not defend this here.] Free market is suspended to give creators an advantage, and their advantage is suspended by an economic force.
I'm deeply in favor of federal laws that encourage a free market. Present copyright law suspends that market, and RIAA efforts to expand it further are deeply anti-competitive. With whom are they competing? They're competing with the public, and with the force of digital publishing. The RIAA must win legal control of digital publishing, or it will die. I hope and pray to God that it dies. Rent-seekers are a drain on the American culture and economy, and this rent-seeker controls 90% of our music.
Also, it's pretty fucking arrogant of these recording companys to think that University students would be more interested in Christina Augilera's singing (boobs) than historical music and speeches from periods and places they are studying. University students are classically (and vocally) disdainers of engineered culture [i.e., Monkeys, N~Sync, Linkin Park, Britney]. I'm disgusted that due process and presumption of guilt is suspended so that this dying organization can work its venom.
I think the RIAA knows that a more decentralized and artistic-centric industry is aching to be birthed from their ashes.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.