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."
I'll do many things, but engendering myself with the RIAA is not one of them.
en*gen*der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-jndr)
v. en*gen*dered, en*gen*der*ing, en*gen*ders
v. tr.
To bring into existence; give rise to: "Every cloud engenders not a storm" (Shakespeare).
To procreate; propagate.
v. intr.
To come into existence; originate.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
For fun trivia, Which "slash-and-burn" Sherman was more agressive... (A) --or-- (B)?
Sigs cause cancer.
Call me a troll if you want, but it's at least good to see the RIAA trying to have dealings with a college or university that aren't purely legal! Yes, I know that some will say that the institutions were pressured on pain of lawsuits, but has that been confirmed?
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
First off, let me make something crystal clear up-front. I in no way condone the way that the RIAA
has tried to unethically shape our legal landscape, much less the shadier tactics they've employed.
They're scum, no question about it.
However, the other side of the equation is almost pathological. While you have many honest people who simply want to defend their Fair Use rights, you also have a loud, vocal "I want I want I want" community who simply believes that it is eeeee-vil that they should ever have to pay for goods (cds) or services.
there has to be some sort of compromise between the two, and I honestly think this is a first, halting step in the right direction. I don't think much of napster, but I believe that if a university sponsored the use of a service such as Real's Rhapsody service which allowed unlimited streaming (as opposed to a mandatory $X a song) of music, it would be a good compromise between the two posistions. People would have access to a large library of music, and the artists would be recieving compensation.
Hell, if nothing else, the sponsorship of such a program may well help to diminish any credible claims that the RIAA has to push through bizarre and draconian laws.
Sounds like mafia tactics to me.
"Pay up, and we'll make sure no unfortunate accidents happen to you..."
Perhaps the university officials received threats of being SNIPPED and GUNNED down...
Shades of Grayden
is if the RIAA would give students a choice in the matter, instead of forcing Napster down their throats(who knows, maybe someone up there really loves irony) ie you could give me:
a) a reduced Napster subscription price
b) a reduced price on iTunes songs or
c) a free "I None of these would have to be paid for from univerisity funds(I'm from Penn State, I still wonder where our mysterious funding comes from), it would give the users a choice, and the RIAA could still make boatloads of money.
Gah, people who think they have some sort of inate right to music piss me off, but not nearly as much as the RIAA....
Sure would hate to see anything happen to it!
RIAA just hit their highest sales, despite these mobster tactics.
lying bastards.
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.
Other music services should sue for anticompetitive behaviour, probably the source of the gag order on each contract.
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
2004-06-11 01:49:15 RIAA subpoenas Georgia Tech for student names
According to Georgia Tech's college paper, the Technique, nine Tech students are among the victims of the RIAA's last round of lawsuits. The RIAA has subpoenaed the Office of Information Technology (OIT) to release the identities of individuals who were using computers at specific network addresses identified as being the sources of large amounts of file sharing. Tech has indicated they intend to comply with the subpoenas. According to Randy Nordin, Tech's chief legal advisor, the RIAA has asked that he tell the students to contact their attorney to see if an out of court settlement can be reached. The deadline to comply was June 2. In the past, violation of the school's Computer and Network Usage Policy, would've resulted in disabling the student's Internet access until the student matter was sorted out with the OIT or the Dean of Student's office.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Oh no! Another $30 per year (if you read the article) in order to download all the free music you want for four years?
Acutally, I did read the entire article:
"This is a nice service if holding onto to your tunes is not important. 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.
Keep in mind too, that this charge applies to ALL students, not just those that want to download music. And what about those from other countries/cultures that won't find their particular tastes in music on Napster?
The total cost of this is yet to be determined. That's just the price these colleges agreed to for now - who knows what the RIAA will start charging them in a few years, or what will happen if their students find a way to circumvent the Napster, etc, etc, etc...
"Napster offers a unique blend of a name students recognize, a broad music library that appeals to every taste and community features that let you discover new music and share your favorites with friends...."
Ah, but you can only share them with friends that are also currently enrolled at another one of these universities...:)
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
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!
I'm an alumnus of one of the universities mentioned, and I'm writing up a letter to be sent to the President and Board of Trustees. It will express my disappointment in their capitulation to RIAA pressure and negligent misuse of funds, and let them know that as long as this deal is in place, the university will no longer be getting any alumni support from myself, and I will encourage my fellow alumni to do the same.
Napster has no legitimate educational purpose. They can go ahead and waste someone else's money (read: the current student body's) on this worthless and unjustifiable service, but I can make sure they will not be wasting my money on it.
If you threaten to ' not protect ' someone if they don't pay up, there is no question its illegal.
If you threaten to sue for an illegal act you believe the other party is committing against you unless they agree to get a contract that makes the act legal, I doubt you can legally call that racketeering.. or protection money. It would be called 'giving them a chance to legalize' and would look good in court.. ' see we tried '...
Not that I'm a lawyer or a judge, but logically this is how I would view it being a jury member..
They are still slime however....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ok, a little rant here.
I was reading a while ago a comment that started to make me think. I don't remember who and when,. but it went something like this:
"Let's say we invent a car replicator that could replicate cars at the cost of raw materials. Car manufacturer would go bankrupt. It would throw of the economy as resources aren't as scarce now, and that's the basis of economy(along with unlimited needs)"
Then a reply:
"But they[car manufacturers] would fight to the death to make this not happend, have it outlawed and destroyed in it's infancy."
Then I started thinking...
Let's go back to the basics. Things cost money because of 2 things:
1) It costs money to produce/sell/ship/etc.
2) Supply and Demands
The economy is based on the fact that a near 0 cost is impossible and that supplies are limited.
However, with the net we see a radical shift about Information(data). Demand is very high and supplies unlimited(you can copy bits at [virtually] no costs.) Any commodity that can be turned into pure data is at 'risk' of this new paradigm. It throws off economy completely.
Is it bad?
Take the car example above... would it be a bad thing for people, us? It sure would be bad for corpos, but us? (ok, bad example, car pollutes and all, more traffic jams, etc...)
Let's say we have machine that replicates food instead, at virtually no cost. It would make all companies producing food to go out of business, so it's going to be really bad for the economy, same as cars. However, is it going to be bad for us, humans? for humanity? Heck, we'd be able to feed everyone at virtually no cost.
Building replicators? Energy replicators/cold fusion? Hell, we'd solve all our problems.
Sure, it's science fiction... unless we're talking about data. With internet and all, costs to replicate and share data is near to nil. We have those sci-fi things in our hands right now, but its restricted to data and information. Is it bad? It's throwing economy off for sure, but in the end, isn't it better this way?
Sure, RIAA and all are in a uproar, and they should be. Since music, movies, games, etc. can all be conveyed using only data and have no material worth, this throws their market off.
I believe we'll have to adapt to this new economy. 'The Information Economy'(TIE, that makes us TIE Fighters... ok, bad pun, couldn't resist =). RIAA and all needs to revise their market and all, they'll need major changes if they want to survive. Market based on information and data will be obselete soon(tm). They'll have to start making actual products to make money.
I don't advocate filesharing of copyrighted materials and all per se, but we won't be able to stop it... and I don't think we should try to stop it. Information wants to be free. It sucks that music, movies, games, etc. are *all* data, but it's not humanity's fault, and certainly not OUR fault. why should we pay for people who based their revenu on information that can now be copied at virtually no cost?
Information is free because it doesn't fit in the whole 'economy' we created. What should we do, fight it? Embrace it? Makes you think, doesn't it?
I say, let's do what's best for us, humans, in the long run, and not corpos that will come and go.
Then again, that's my somewhat socialist view of the whole thing, so YMMV =)
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"?