Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Co-Opts More Universities
southpolesammy writes "The Register reports that six more US Universities and colleges have agreed to enter into protection schemes with the RIAA. In short, several institutions have signed deals with the RIAA's lapdog, the Napster music service, to 'goad these schools toward becoming music brokers'. The underlying threat of being sued by the RIAA if they don't pay them off is almost certainly the driving force behind their acceptance of this scheme. And of course, there's the ever-present gag order they'll probably enforce on these new universities as well. Great business model guys. Way to engender yourselves to your biggest customer base."
..Can't the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone else just realize that there is an efficient medium for distributing music, movies, and any other digital/converted to digital media, and WORK WITH IT? They're barking up a dying tree here. People will find better, more secure ways to transfer music/movies over the net, these associations need to embrace these technological advances and come up with an updated business model for them to profit off of.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Sure would hate to see anything happen to it!
RIAA just hit their highest sales, despite these mobster tactics.
lying bastards.
And while he'll be paying the costs of this, he certainly won't be getting any benefits from it, since he has a mac... which means, no napster...
I wonder exactly how much student outrage would have to happen before the universities break down and withdraw from the napstery thing...
I certainly would have thought more of CORNELL, of all places, at least...
The RIAA is preying on the lawsuit fears of universities in an attempt to gain a captive market of students that are forced to have Napster whether they want it or not.
It's a terrific business model, what are you talking about? You think they don't understand that it's an implied threat? Why else would a university bite? Of course they know it's a threat, and they don't care if you think it's sleazy, what they do care about is how much of a threat the universities think it is. Damn right it's a threat, do you think anyone would pay them otherwise? It's a fine business model in a world where "business ethics" is not about "ethics" but what you can legally get away with.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
If a consortion of universities got together and fought this RIAA pressure would they be able to win? Remember the RIAA has never successfully prosecuted someone for offering music or providing network bandwidth unless this party had a commercial interest in the activity e.g. selling copies rather than sharing with friends (this is to the best of my knowledge). The black and white of the copyright laws say that the person making the copies is the one liable . . . wouldn't this be individual students? And not the university.
For example a public library is not liable for copyright infringement if someone photocopies a whole book on their photocopy machine. The person making the copies is the legally responsible party. This is exactly why photocopiers are now mostly self service in libraries (and even Kinkos). Because then the owner of the machine is not liable . . . wouldn't this work for universities? The owner of the machine (in this case the network) would not be liable for the actions of the people that used the machine (the individuals that are copying the music). Thus individual students would have to be prosecuted, not the university.
Assuming all this is true, I would hope that some university would stand up and fight the RIAA rather than rolling over and becoming the RIAA's B****.
As a college student, my biggest problem with this new "system" is whether it creates a compulsory fee for the students. If the gag effect wasn't in place, I might not be as worried because I would know the details, but if this will be a mandatory fee, I have a serious problem. I feel that I have the right to determine what to spend my money on, especially in such a jaded area as this.
The other part of the program that bugs me is not being able to keep the songs after graduation without "buying" them.
Once their four years at school are over, the students are cut off from Napster and lose all the music they've download. That is unless they pay 99 cents per song or $10 per album to own a permanent download that can be burned onto CDs or MP3 players.
In my mind, if I have already paid a fee to buy as many songs as I wish, why should I be required to purchase the same thing later? Will I have to re-purchase the iBook I just paid for using an academic discount when I graduate as well? I sure hope not.
I find it ridiculous that the universities themselves are paying anything to the scumbags. How can anyone even consider the possibility that random schools have anything to do with their students actions, much less have legal responsibility for those actions? Even more amazing is the fact that the universities are making any kinds of contracts for the students. Back here in Europe, their purpose is to provide education, but I guess it's pretty much different in the US, where they are more of a kindergarten than a place of research and study.
So how long until someone writes a program to just save all the streamed music for burnination to CD or use in portables and laptops? Congratulations RIAA! That CD in Sally Student's SUV just net'ed you....I mean the artist....less than 1 cent!
We certainly DO deserve music for free.
What crack are you smoking? (I want some!)
The only music you deserve for free is what you can whistle/play/sing yourself. If it ain't in the public record/artistic commons/similar licence and (C) is owned by someone who wants to charge for it then you should (and legally MUST) pay for it. Fair use as a legal construct only applies to limited use (i.e. educational setting, keeping your purchased media safe while playing a backup, etc.)
What really pisses me off is peoples' like you with their sense of entitlement. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED! (Unless you live in Canada where they already pay for downloads in a roundabout way)
Mod me a Troll/Flamebait/whatever But this is the reality.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
That's a grand total of eight schools in the last nine months that have agreed to become music vendors and pay an RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) tax to avoid lawsuits against their students.
So what they're saying is: We, the all knowing and clairvoyant, RIAA know ahead of time some of your students will be guilty. We can't catch them all, but if you pay in advance, we won't sue you?
I thought organized crime was illegal? How is this any differenct from making sure some "guys" won't come along and burn down your house as long as you pay a "protection fee"?
We certainly DO deserve music for free.
What crack are you smoking? (I want some!)
If it ain't in the public record/artistic commons/similar licence and (C) is owned by someone who wants to charge for it then you should (and legally MUST) pay for it. Fair use as a legal construct only applies to limited use (i.e. educational setting, keeping your purchased media safe while playing a backup, etc.)
What really pisses me off is peoples' like you with their sense of entitlement. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED! (Unless you live in Canada where they already pay for downloads in a roundabout way)
Mod me a Troll/Flamebait/whatever But this is the reality.
Hi, you are brainwashed. We, the people, allow an artists a LIMITED ownership of his work. We LEND him ownership for a while so that he feels like producing more in the future. The arists gets to own his work because we LET HIM. We, the people, are the real owners, and we are entitled to it, as much as we are entitled to the air you exhale. That is how copyright was designed.