Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Moves Against College-Network Fileswapping
pazu13 writes "The RIAA is taking action against college "Napster networks". It's suing four network operators, two at Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, one at Princeton University, and one at Michigan Technological University. Don't know where this is going, but I'm afraid it might get significantly harder for humble college students such as myself to sample an artist's music before going out and buying a disc... my speed across the network is ridiculously faster than when I try to access outside sources."
So NFS and windows file sharing are illegal now? It is almost impossible for network admins to know what is on every single network share on the LAN. Especially if people are running shares from their desktop machines.
I support the recording industry locating and suing and/or prosecuting people who illegally violate copyright on publications of all kinds. But that is the people engaged in the illegal activity. Peer to peer networks have legitimate functions and can be used in a non-infringing manner. They should have similar common carrier status to the phone companies.
If they were locating and prosecuting some students engaged in illegally copying copyrighted content, that would be different.
This action may be legal, but it isn't right.
Because there are a lot more artists than what you see on MTV, Radio, and Amazon. In fact, much of the music I listen to is not available by any of the sources you mentioned. And if Amazon sells it, it is likely imported and lacking samples.
...how we are going to be able to find older, less popular music titles? Case in point: for some time (years), I was looking for Red Seven's self-titled album or CD. My local record stores told me it was out of press, so I couldn't order it. I couldn't find it any of the used record stores around town. Finally, after a lot of searching online, I found one song from that album through a gnutella client (Note to RIAA: I'd be glad to send $1 or whatever to the rights holder in exchange for a full-quality *.wav). Until the music industry gets off its hands and makes it easier for the public to find and *pay for* the music it wants, without all the nutty paranoia, the KaZaA's of this world are not going to disappear.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
because it's not on the radio MTV,
because it's not on MTV or the short samples available on Amazon.com
because they are short, sound like crap, and take an awful lot of effort to listen to a series of them.
Seriously, there are a lot of us who don't listen to "the popular" music, and even if you do, you maybe get to hear one or two songs on the radio. (MTV is even worse.)
There is no way, short of borrowing a CD from a friend or using P2P to listen to an "album" a couple of times to see if you want to buy it.
Believe it or not, there are people who use P2P networks to listen to non-mainstream artists they've heard about, to evaluate new music, etc. And believe it or not there are people who buy more music because of what they've heard on P2P. I can say this because I am one of those people.
"The recording industry has stepped up its campaign against campus music swapping, filing suit against four university students who operated file-search services on their school's internal networks. "
Wouldn't it be cheaper to offer an educational discount on music CD's, thus encourage more CD purchases?
"Derp de derp."
> Don't know where this is going, but I'm afraid it might get significantly harder for humble college students such as myself to sample an artist's music before going out and buying a disc... my speed across the network is ridiculously faster than when I try to access outside sources.
I'm sorry, I don't believe you.
Look, the rhetoric of "I want to have file sharing programs so I can legitimately and legally under fair use laws make backup reproductions" is getting old. Not only do I not believe you, but the media does not believe you, the law does not believe you, and the industry sure-as-hell does not believe you.
People want to steal and pirate music and movies. They are doing it, and no amount of legislation and regulation is going to change that.
What does this imply? Well, quite rightly, a fundemental transformation of the actual value of art and entertainment media itself.
This has been going on since the invention of the printing press -- since the age of the bard. Over time, the cost of reproduction goes down, and thus so does the value of the individual unit of media.
The industry can fight it, but it will lose over time. That is inevitable.
However, profit can still be made. The winners will be those who offer media that can not be reproduced digitally (vinyl, packaging, etc), and those who adapt the earliest and fastest to the future economies of entertainment. Those that predict the changing value will have a head start on capturing the emerging market.
In other words, an hour of music is no longer worth $15 - $20. The earlier the industry realizes that, they better they will do.
And the sooner consumers stop trying to deceive themselves, the lawmakers,and the industry, the better this will be for all of us. Legislature is being crippled by a lying consumer (fair use, my ass), a lying producer (free market, my ass), and people trying to take advantage of the deception (Microsoft DRM, my ass).
"As the present now will later be past, the order is rapidly fading. And the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a changing."
PS: Don't believe there is a trend? Think about music in the middle ages. You had to pay someone to play. And when they were done, they were done. You'd have to pay them again to hear the music again. By the beginning of the 20th century, you could spend a fortune on a record player and another fortune on some vinyl, but you could listen as often as you liked. By the end of the 20th century, cassettes and CDs were ubiqituous and cheap, but had a cost associated with physical reproduction. Today the physical costs are nil. See the trend?
Unlike Napster or Kazaa, which helped create a network of computers that would not have existed otherwise, "Phynd" and the others search a network that already exists.
Okay. Phynd is a straightforward SMB indexing server. As per comments here from one of the RPI students, one of the persons charged wrote some of the Phynd software, and the other person admined a Phynd server for RPI. The RIAA is *not* going after the people who are serving infringing data, but after the CS students who wrote indexing software...because it's more convenient for the RIAA.
When file indexing services become illegal because one of the servers that they index contains potentially infringing information (as just happened), the world has turned completely upside down. Google indexes copyright-infringing images and text every day, and in *far* larger quantities than these SMB indexers. Should *they* be served with a lawsuit and ordered to shut down? How about Yahoo? AllTheWeb has an FTP search engine, not that far from an SMB search engine...is *that* illegal as well? Hell, if you have a multi-user system, a user stores infringing information in his account, and your cron daemon runs updatedb, you're in the same boat as the students that got charged.
I'm very, very uncomfortable with this, and I feel that the RIAA has gone too far.
May we never see th