Slashdot Mirror
Congress Asks Universities To Curb Piracy
The Illegal Subset of the Integers writes "According to Ars Technica, Congress has sent letters to 19 universities identified by the RIAA and MPAA as havens for copyright infringement. In it, they not only seek to discover what these universities are doing to dissuade students from infringing activities, but give the implied threat. House Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith (R-TX) was quoted as saying, 'If we do not receive acceptable answers, Congress will be forced to act.'
One wonders, though, what the universities are supposed to do when international disrespect for imaginary property rights is so widespread that there are currently over two million hits on Google for a certain oft-posted illegal number, up from the three hundred thousand hits from sometime yesterday."
To curb the bullshit. (And they seem to be off to a good start during the past few months, except for this.)
I mean, as long as we're asking for stuff we're not going to get...
I believe that a number of universities have taken this approach and left it at that. There are a number of things that are done in a university setting that would be considered illegal anywhere else. From what I understand, the general consensus is that this should fall under the same protection. After all, isn't college a collection of curious students trying to learn?
If Congress is forced to "act" by re-evaluating the entire copyright system, discovering the unfairness and complete futility of the DMCA, defining fair use, and shifting the balance of power back to the citizens (not "consumers"), then that could be a good thing...
...but I'm not holding my breath.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
Internet Whack-a-Mole is a game that you can not win, not even if congress tries to help you. The problem is that when the **AA tries to play IWaM(TM) they don't have enough hammers, and never will. Colleges are one of those places where people who want to share music can and will share music. Refer back to the sneaker-net theory of file sharing:
One student and 25 of their best friends join a pool. The pool members make a list of the music they would like to have a copy of. Each of the pool members buys a music CD from the list and 25 blank CDs. After making the requisite 25 copies, they all get together for some beer and a CD swap party. If done with discretion, nobody at the RIAA will ever know. The quality of the music is high, there is no record of the transaction that the school or ISP can hand over to the RIAA, there is no way to detect this copyright infringement. BTW, 26 x 25 = a loss of 650 CD sales in one night, in one location.
If the RIAA continues on their path to destitution, this is how music will be shared in the future, the same as it was shared in the past. IWaM is stupid, stupid, STUPID.
If the RIAA member companies were to do something that would make their product (distribution of someone else's content) more desirable, or valuable then they would again see rising revenues. Their business is outdated, and dying. Congress can't save them. God himself (if he exists) couldn't even save that business model.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
NB, all digital representations (including, yes, those of songs and movies) are at base level just numbers.
I believe the "imaginary" substitution is somewhat warranted. What is it, exactly that you believe these "artists" own? Is it the chords and how the song is played on an instrument? Because being a guitarist/psuedo-pianist/instrumentalist myself, I find the idea highly objectionable that anyone, that's right anyone can own chords or combinations of chords (known as chord progressions). If it's not the chords they own, is it the lyrics? Because as I've seen it, lyrics often contain information such as cliches and phrases borrowed from other sources. I find it difficult to believe that someone can "own" phrases.
Is it the chords combined with the lyrics? What exactly do they own?
The truth is that "intellectual" property is imaginary. It was only until I read that phrase in this very article that the issue had been nailed home so clearly in my head.
Nobody owns the plot that everyone uses in modern movies, popular culture, or "folk songs" and things were never before subject to such legislation. They were never "property" before. Myths and tales permeated the countryside. That was until plays could be captured forever as "movies", and music could be stowed away on "records." The truth is that media provided these now hugely successful recording artists with a brief window in which to make millions. That window was only provided by the fact that recorded media could be scarce. That limitation is now gone. Records don't require media anymore and are now as free as they were via word of mouth or through strolling minstrels. The truth is that it was a very small amount of time and their business model should *not* be protected. The reason why people say that artists ripping off other artists makes for great artistry is because it's true. Artists for centuries simply innovated and were free to do so by the free society of culture which has been cut off with records and movies. Well, gentlemen, welcome to the other side of the mountain. If you give something out to the free air that can be copied and played again, it will be. You have no power to stop the echo of your voice once you've used it to scream something from atop a mountain, it is then no longer yours to contain. And as such you have no power to stop the spread of your content. Culture is now back in the hands of the people, where it belonged to begin with. All your justifications and ideas of "intellectual property" are now gone. Get used to tightening your belt and practicing your craft...or find a new trade.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
what goes around, comes around. all causes create effects, and the effects in turn create causes. all chain of events return to their originator nonetheless, during the course of infinity, increased in proportion to the road they traveled. nothing in the universe disperse and vanish, including concepts and acts, they just transform.
its not a matter of belief.
Read radical news here
"No, it doesn't. Though, of course, many of the details of copyright law serve various industries of entrenched interests."
Yes it does and it always has.
It happend in Britain, which is why Franklin wanted it forbidden in the constitution.
Did you know that music wasn't even copyrightable in the US until the 1970's? Yet we managed to have a whole music revolution before that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There is a difference between a ROI and milking your customers.
I think the majority here will agree that a ROI is important. No ROI, no creation. If I can't make what I invest into a piece of work, I won't make it. Simple as that. No more movies, no more commercial music (...ok, that might not be the worst development, but...), and most of all no more commercial software. Yes, OSS is very cool, but I doubt the gamers here would be too happy with that development.
Someone who creates work, someone who comes up with some ingenious design or a really cool invention should get his dues.
But the point of balance between consumer and producer has been left years ago. When the producer dictates how, when and why you may use his creation, things get out of balance. I do agree that a movie maker should have the right to get his money from me watching and enjoying it. But I do not agree that I should only be allowed to watch it where and how HE decides. I do gladly pay him the amoung of money he deems right for the movie, if I do the same (but, frankly, most movies ain't worth the 10 bucks you pay now in cinemas here). What I don't agree with is the kind of restriction imposed on me. I can't use some music in my portable player. I can't watch new videos off my computer. I have to insert CDs or even plug in pieces of hardware to my machine, or allow the installation of spyware, to use computer programs.
This has nothing to do with a ROI. It's imposing limitations and actual damage to your customer in the name of "protecting" your rights. If I protected my consumer rights the same way the content industry "protects" its content, I'd be in jail because the laws are biased way past any sensible point towards the industry.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Most pirated copies do not equal lost sales!
Most pirated copies do not equal lost sales!
Most pirated copies do not equal lost sales!
Piracy is just free advertising!
Piracy is just free advertising!
Piracy is just free advertising!
Piracy is not the same as counterfitting!
Piracy is not the same as counterfitting!
Piracy is not the same as counterfitting!
I went to college not so long ago, back when MP3s were first becoming the rage (before Napster). We all downloaded and shared pirates MP3s and built up large MP3 collections.
Did any of those copied MP3s result in lost sales for the record companies? No, hardly any did. We were poor college students. If we couldn't have pirated copies for free, we would have simply gone without.
This is true of every form of content piracy I've ever witnessed. I know someone who modded a PS2 and loaded it up with hundreds of pirated games. Would he have bought most of those games if he couldn't have pirated them? Of course not -- he couldn't afford to. He would have simply not had the games.
Piracy does not have much real impact on sales, and most stats citing "industry losses due to piracy" are fabricated bullshit. All piracy does is allow people who can't afford the product still get access to it. And that's not a bad thing, as it's free advertising.
As an college degree-holding adult who can now afford things, I bought many CDs by bands I only knew about because I had pirated their early stuff back in college. Had I not done that, I wouldn't have bought their CDs years later, because I wouldn't have even known about them. Similarly, I can now afford to purchase software like Photoshop that I wouldn't know how to use (and wouldn't have any reason to buy) today if I hadn't pirated the software back in college so that I could learn how to use it. Just more evidence that piracy is the strongest form of free advertising, and companies should learn to leverage that instead of trying to stomp it out.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
When I was in college working towards a performance degree, I spent 8 hours a day just practicing, generating no income, simply to prepare myself to begin making money from my craft. This was on top of a part-time job and classes. And it's not like when you hit a professional level, suddenly every note you play generates a paycheck. If you think doing anything on a professional level musically takes a 'day of work for a lifetime of returns' you're a fucking idiot. It take a LOT of time and a LOT of hard work, and unless you're some POS pop star blessed by a label, it's crappy income.
Is the system broken? Yes. Copyright reform is sorely needed. Expecting artists to work for free isn't the answer. You aren't entitled to shit.