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."
Somehow I don't really trust what Napster is doing now, is it normal for companies to make this kind of information public or not?
The story makes it sound like Napster has something to hide that when known could cause all kinds of trouble for them.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
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.
Somebody should start drafting the Freedom of Information Act request for this information tomorrow.
They've gone a long way, from being one of the trailblazers in filesharing, to a co-opted bully doing business through the RIAA sue-your-own-customers model.
It sounds like the admission of their discounted price is not going to please their subscribers either. Whoever they are. Anyone around here use it? I don't think they can really compete, to be honest. But I will continue to watch the online music wars with interest.
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
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!
As far as I know almost all colleges enter into secret backroom deals with software and operating system companies. This has two good effects for the colleges.
A: They don't have to explain to alumni why they spent a million rupees on frivolous software.
B: The people making the purchases don't get lynched for all the stupid mistakes they make.
What really stinks is that most colleges are at least partially state funded, and they protect these records from public scrutiny. It's a sucky deal, but no more sucky than the books that won't even be used that students are told to buy.
On an off topic note, does it make anyone else sick seeing the amount of IT classes that are taught through power point presentations rather than proffessor insight. If I never see a piece of crap programming book with by Thompson again it will be too soon!
"On the plus side, Napster users at the school would be able to download as much music as they like for $3 per month - Windows users only, of course.
Of course! I mean, those iPod/Mac yuppies already have iTunes, and share music with those Communist Loonix weirdos? No way.
Sadly, the DRM restrictions with Napster run high. Users can only make 3 copies of a song before the files become unplayable. In addition, students must pay 99 cents per song to move the file from their computer onto a CD or music playing device.
3 copies? 99 cents to move a song across some copper wires? Well, until the DRM is cracked, anyway.
Students would also only be able to download songs while they are on the school network. Once they leave school their music disappears.
Suuuuure. (See above about the DRM)
Has renting culture ever been more fun?"
*sigh* That statement is sooo true. It's a shame that the Napster name is still attached to this. In it's heyday, Napster showed a hint what a free culture could be - this is just stupid. I can't see thier service surviving in the same market as iTunes, not to mention thier total reliance on DRM to force money out of people. DRM is like balloon - once it's breached, it disappears - forever.
Napster is a zombie - it's already dead, it just doesn't know it yet.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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?Yeah, that's great. What are the chances that Napster is hosting a single band that I'm interested in listening to? Well, thanks to my tuition funds, some freshman kid somewhere can listen to his Limp Bizkit. Awesome. And to think, if I had done a little worse on my SATs, I would have been deprived the privilege of helping society in this way.
Breakfast served all day!
But to include it as part of a mandatory technology fee for ALL students is absurd. Not all students will even have internet access at home...
And that's just the point... This is a service that people would use at home. It has nothing to do with academics, or the health or social life of the students.
The administration at these universities must really have their heads up their asses to try a stunt like this.
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?
Instead of paying to access the University network and paying to access Napster... why not just BYOA, download LimeWire and be free of the following evils:
On the other hand, I never went to University. I know that the U of R is in excess of $30k per year, though, and their student Internet access is a very slow broadband that everyone complains about.
-JemI don't think that's flippant at all... it is pretty much the same kind of volume discount used everywhere else. I just think that regular napster customers might be a little annoyed about the apparent arbitrariness of the pricing system of what is essentially an intangible product. Sure, there is something being transferred here, but it's not like in wholesale/retail markup for example, where the discount actually reflects the decreased overheads in terms of packaging, handling and the like. It's probably splitting hairs, but i think it's a little different in application.
As *some* Australians might say, "same shit, different bucket".
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Oh well. At least they are just dealing with Napster; my student fees go to Microsoft.
Open Source Sushi
maybe a few years ago, but not anymore. once universities learned how to get around laws about being not-for-profit, stuff like this (unis going into asshanded contracts) started to become more and more commonplace.
... i pay twice.
now for some OT which i'm sure will get mod'd down
it's pretty pathetic that the "academic tradition" of openness at universities (i'm speaking of public state schools, not private unis which can do whatever they want for all i care) is slowly being pushed to the wayside. universities are no longer run like places of education, but more like businesses. business has no place in education.
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.
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
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, and the sad state of using patents to stifle innovation. i can only imagine the american forefathers are rolling in their graves.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
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!
One source of ulcers for school administrators is the threat of being sued by the **AA or a major software vendor. That liability towers over bandwidth costs. If a university were to engage in some kind of contract with a company to fill student computer entertainment demands in a legal manner, the unversity would be somewhat legally shielded as they have appeared to have made a good faith attempt to curb piracy. Even if students start figuring out proxying methods to still get their P2P through the school's gateway, a DA would be less inclined to whipe out their endowment.
Drexel Univserity, for example, made a deal with Microsoft years back to let them hand out CDs to students packed with often-pirated software. This was not to save money on bandwidth from inevitable piracy, it was not a decision influenced by ethics; rather it was purely a cover-your-ass legal rhetorical maneuver because they did not want to get sued one day. An investment at a bargain price.
And what's with the title of this article anyway, talking about a company's non-disclosing pursuits, when the jist of the article addresses whether or not this should be an opt-in or general budget thing? Would anyone complain if their university comped everyone free HBO during this last Sopranos season? I doubt it, because this internet piracy thing is the incendiary hot button water-cooler thing whereas everybody knows HBO is a Good Thing (and that it is not TV).
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.
Essentially, it seems that the RIAA wants to force universities to tax all the students in order to pay for the music listening of those who might otherwise download music illegally off the Internet.
It's a great deal for the RIAA. They don't have to make quality products, they get paid for every student regardless of the students use of the service. The only choice the students have is to go to another school.
I would have no objection to an opt-in setup. The FSF has already proposed a very reasonable setup that would allow ISPs to sell unlimited music exchange to customers for a reasonable fee that would go to the recording companies.
Interestingly enough, the RIAA has refused to consider such a reasonable solution and has recently discussed raising prices. This seems odd behavior for a group trying to gain customer acceptance of a flegling business model.
It seems to me that by raising the prices for downloading music, the RIAA is going to give new incentive to pirate their music. Doubling their prices, though, allows them to whine to Congress that now they are losing twice as much money as before. Oh no! In response, our congressional representatives will be pushed to create more poorly crafted legistlation that makes more citizens into criminals and assures the RIAA continuous revenue regardless of the quality of music they produce.
If you object to this kind of treatment, boycott the RIAA the week of July 4th. Don't buy any music. Don't listen to the radio. Show the RIAA that it's bullying behavior has it's consequences.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
of the ones who will actually be PAYING for the service, then they should just tell Napster to go piss up a rope.
OU: We are going to find out what our students think of this. After all, they're the ones affected.
N: No! You can't do that! It's a secret!
OU: We're not sure we like that...
N: Tough luck. We don't want those numbers out there.
OU: Well then, we regret to inform you that signing up with your service is not in our best interests. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...
Yeah I know ... I should fight the good fight, but sorry, I just can't be arsed.
America in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen...
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
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.
Uh, if the RIAA is suing you, it's because you are illegally infringing their copyright, and they have full right to sue you. How are you one of their customers if you're not paying for their content?
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.
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?