Slashdot Mirror
Napster Gags University Over Fees
A. S. Bradbury writes "The Register reports that Napster is trying to prevent Ohio University from discussing details of its contract (such as the price). In order to gauge interest for the service, Ohio University posted a survey asking if students would be willing to pay $3 a month in order to opt-in to the service. Sean O'Malley, spokesman Communication Network Services at OU says "Napster called us today and said we should not publicize the details or discuss our contract." Penn State and the University of Rochester both currently have a contract with Napster, but are paying for the service with money that could be used elsewhere, rather than allowing students to opt in."
Aren't the contracts that public universities enter supposed to be public information anyway? They are, after all, funded in part by tax dollars.
Every citizen should have the right to know exactly what their hard earned money is being spent on.
Right!
Limitations
# To burn to CD or MP3 player, you must purchase tracks separately
* $0.99 per track or $9.95 per album (You only pay this if you want to burn to CD or MP3 player.)
* Purchased tracks have no restrictions - unlimited copying, no expiration # Cannot download new tracks during summer or winter breaks * Tracks already downloaded still playable during breaks
What a joke!
Ohio University doesn't yet have a contract with Napster; they're thinking about it. From the survey:
The purpose of their survey is to help them decide whether to enter into a contract. Hence Napster has no legal ability to enforce confidentiality. They just don't like the fact that the university's survey gives an idea of what the costs would be. It sounds like a scam to me. Do you think that the cost of water, electricity, or food services is a deep, dark secret?If you people hate the RIAA that much, why not do something about it, such as boycott them, and make a point of buying only non-RIAA music?
Seriously, it really is incredible how many people there are here who blindly endorse P2P sharing, regardless of whether what they are sharing is legal or not, and then suddenly complain when the RIAA starts suing people. It is especially incredible when you consider that there was once a time when people here were saying, "Let the RIAA go ONLY after those folks who are pirating, rather than try to shut down a P2P network that has other uses besides piracy." Well, the RIAA is now doing EXACTLY that, and yet people are now continuing to complain.
For crying out loud: by now, nobody in their right mind can say that the RIAA has not given fair warning before suing people. I say, put up, or shut up. If you don't like the RIAA's policy, don't buy their stuff. It's that simple.
I realize this may be slightly off-topic, but the fact of the matter is this: I believe the RIAA has a legitimate case for going after piracy. However, the flip side to this is that piracy might not be such a huge problem from them if it were not for the fact that the RIAA and its members are basically overcharging for their mediocre products, and treating the artists unfairly.
If they were to treat the artists more fairly, lower their prices CONSIDERABLY, and give us better products than Britney Spears, they might have a better chance with me... But unfortunately, they have now shown that they are all shady crooks, and I for one am now making it a point NOT to use any RIAA-approved services like Napster, and I am also making a special point not to buy any RIAA CDs.
I'm sure a lot of universities are agreeing to this in the hopes that it will keep students from "pirating" music and thus keep the RIAA off their backs, but seeing as the students will still have to pay for the songs if they want to burn them to CD or listen to them on a mobile device, just how useful will this be?
Both universities are on i2hub.com ;-)
Why pay the industry when i2hub has everything you want?
What sorts of student organizations exist to help get word out about this issue, and what have they done thus far?
If students start making a lot of noise about wanting this information disclosed, and the faculty tells Napster that the students want to know or they won't use the service, perhaps it might convince Napster to give the info.
I just hope someone cracks the stupid DRM scheme Napster uses now and puts them in their place.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
1. Should the University implement this service?
Answer: NO
2. Would you subscribe?
Answer: NO
3. Do you think other students would subscribe?
Answer: NO
4. Do you feel this would be a viable alternative to illegal downloading?
Answer: NO
5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how effective would this be in reducing illegal downloads at Ohio University?
Answer: 1, No Effect.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with Universities saving money. What I think most folks dislike is university secrecy. The small college I started at for instance had an entire lab full of brand new dells with Windows XP on them. All of those machines had 1 purpose, and that was to connect to the as400 system so students could learn COBOL. I asked the department head what those systems cost the school and he told me that the information was part of a secret deal with dell.
I am of the thinking that they could have done better with old hardware and new monitors/keyboards/mice with any network connected OS, but I'll never know, and never be able to send a note to the administration about it or do (gasp), a school project on it because I was cock blocked by a back room deal.
Maybe I'm just daft and naive but I feel the secret use of public funds is bad 99.9 percent of the time unless it deals with safety matters.
In Napster's defence, they're probably counting on giving steep discounts to drive adaptation, then raising the price to a less-steep discount when they have (lol) legitimacy. If the discounted price they gave to the initial colleges is known, everyone will want that price, and they will all be bargaining from a position of power. This kind of information is normal for companies to try and hide from the public.
Not that I'd shed a tear for the New Napster, but this doesn't sound nefarious to me.
The ______ Agenda
The problem is they would not be buying the music. The students would be renting it for the duration of their college education. After which time they would have to pay 99 cents a song to actually 'buy' it. Three bucks a month and you still have to buy the CDs in the end.
Why would napster fees be any different? In light of the scrutiny of the increasing tuition/fees at universities as of late, i would think the people would demand transparency (looks like it's going to be a 14% hike this year at the U of MN, 52% over the past 3 years!)
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
It could be more than just the $90,000. Much more.
I would imagine that there are a significant number of alumni from the mid 90s onward that will stop donating (or never donate) to the school because of this.
I personally have told several Lion Link operators that I will not give to Penn State as long as they are supporting the RIAA via Napster.
- Tony
I wasn't sure who (if anybody) it was appropriate to reply to.
My fiancee is a dead-head. They don't care who downloads or trades the live recordings, period. Trading/exchanging them is fine as long as it isn't 'for profit'.
I have a 'small collection' (~7gb) of almost 57 hours of primarily 256Kbb rips of fairly high-quality direct tape captures made over the past (literally) close to 30 years.
I have only learned to love the dead and their music (with or without Jerry) because of her, but it is their attitude and spirit that I love sooooo much more.
Thank you, Daeley, I love you so much more then words could ever describe.
Exactly - in a related story yesterday on the reg - it mentions exaclty that as the reason.
From the story linked above:
"This fact eludes numerous media members who have been attracted to Napster's deals with Penn State and the University of Rochester. The two schools provide Napster at no cost to students, giving them unlimited access to tethered downloads or 'rented music.' (The students have to pay 99 cents per song to burn music onto a CD, put it on an MP3 player or keep it after their university time is done.)
The trick is that Napster has cut a sweet deal with Penn State and University of Rochester in order to promote the schools as models for others to follow. Both schools, because of their pilot status, receive Napster at massive discounts - close to free. And still, they warn student IT costs may go up in the future as a result of the service."
Napster is offering early adopters huge discounts and doesn't want everyone else to demand the same discounts.
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
one of the things that really amuses me about this is that my uni (i am a rather recent grad) is getting in the news yet again because someone thinks something happening here is negative.
;)
we're a real rebel culture, alright. a nearly city-wide halloween "block" party that resembols mardi gras on acid, several unofficial street parties a year, time change "riots" (blown well out of proportion by the media). why so many parties? because we work just as hard (if not harder) as we play (believe it or not, it's pretty tame around here most of the time in all honesty), and now *gasp* asking students if they would be interested in something that would cost them more in tuition.
what a concept. but then, this is also the university that got a licensing deal with M$ that lasted for many years and had bill over a barrel (OU paid almost nothing for the site license and any student or staff member had access to copies. they could even have personal copies made for a rather modest fee)
want to know the funny part? i'm an engineering major. know what most of the people in my section use in the labs? unix. know what a lot of them use at home? bsd, linux, and mac. and it's not exactly a small group within the university.
makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
The RIAA doesn't sue customers, it sues pirates who are avoiding paying for their copyrighted materials, violating copyright holder rights. If you're a customer, you've legally paid for the material in some way and aren't on Kazaa ripping artists off.
;)
You're right, the RIAA has never made the mistake of sueing someone who didn't trade files.
Although it's not been tested as far as I know, what if I purchase an RIAA CD, but it's at home and I'm at work. Am I infringing on copyright by downloading a copy? I wouldn't think so, as the music is already "licenced" to me.
Furthermore, we (CD-purchasing public) aren't customers of the RIAA. I've never purchased anything from the RIAA. The RIAA's customers are the record labels. The RIAA is sueing their customer's customers, on their customer's behalf.
Business has a significant role in a college, as those are the prospective employers for graduates. Without having some business in a school, you end up teaching a lot of kids completely useless skills
my state's Constitution states that (state college/uni) education must be affordable. in the past 2.5 years since we got stuck with a new president, tuition has consistently gone up. 5 new buildings have been built or are currently under construction, only one of which is used (partially) for teaching. the rest are completely dedicated to research.
Don't know who you think is doing the research, but it's mainly students. Learning how to do research is still learning. Besides, how many classrooms does a university need? You can't run a college like high school, people learn by doing.
the kicker is that this research is almost always funded by gov't grants (read: my and yours $$). yet, if i want to use technology developed on those grants, i have to pay for a license to use it ... i pay twice.
The fact that you get the technology at all is the benefit. Not to mention which, the government has many programs that don't directly benefit all citizens. I don't get welfare, for example.
Also, students at schools should be damned glad for those grants, as they pay to run the school through the significant "overhead" fees the school takes out of each grant.
if a researcher here finds a cure for cancer, the uni's corporate arm will take ownership, and license it. that's damn sad. the days of places of higher education putting out freely available innovations are long gone thanks to the almighty ustpo
I'm not sure what you think was the situation 50 years ago, but what happened then was profs would develop something, start a company, patent it themselves, and screw everyone including the university. If the school develops something that will make someone some money, why shouldn't they use that money to subsidize operations that benefit all students?