A Look at The RIAA's War Against College Students

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "p2pnet.net has put together a fascinating retrospective on the RIAA's war against college students, commenced February 28, 2007. The campaign is described as one to 'force "consumers" to buy what they're told to buy — corporate "content," as the Big 4 call their formulaic outpourings.' In a scathing indictment not only of the major record labels, but of those schools, administrators, and educators who have yet to take a stand against it, Jon Newton reviews a number of landmark moments in the 11-month old 'reign of terror'. They include the announcement of the bizarre 'early settlement' sale, the sudden withdrawal of a case in which a 17 year old Texas high school student had been subpoenaed while in class during school hours to attend a deposition the very next day during his taking of a standardized test, the call by Harvard law professors for the university to fight back when and if attacked, and the differing reactions by other schools."

Comments

Incoherent article

[Jeff DeMaagd]

"The campaign is described as one to 'force "consumers" to buy what they're told to buy -- corporate "content," as the Big 4 call their formulaic outpourings.' "

If it's really crap like you say, is it really worth listening to at all? Why even download it "for free" if you think it's crap? It just sounds like a sad excuse to download. There are alternatives to "Big 4" music, unfortunately, sometimes the anti-RIAA crowds neglect to mention them.

Scathing indictment?

[Mike1024]

The campaign is described as one to 'force "consumers" to buy what they're told to buy -- corporate "content," as the Big 4 call their formulaic outpourings.' In a scathing indictment not only of the major record labels, but of those schools, administrators, and educators who have yet to take a stand against it

The way I see it is: If the content is so terrible, don't download it. As you will not be infringing on anyone's copyright, you will not get sued.

If the content is good enough that you want access to it, you either have to pay for it, or accept a small but nonzero chance of being sued and fined for copyright infringement.

I also don't see that universities need to cover for students engaging in copyright infringement. If you connect to a torrent of 'Heroes' or 'House' or whatever, your IP address gets recorded, and the copyright holders subpoena the university to know what user had that IP address at that time, why does the university need to 'take a stand against it'?

Now, I'd certainly agree that some stories on slashdot talk about inexplicably large fines being requested. And certainly innocent people who are wrongly accused should be entitled to reclaim reasonable costs for their defence. But to say students are being forced to buy record labels' music, or to say that universities have a responsibility to cover up lawbreaking by their students, doesn't really make sense to me.

In other words I found the article less 'scathing' and more 'worded emotively'.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Scathing indictment?

[whthat]

Problem with just say if the RIAA's content is bad don't download it is that the RIAA has a bad track record of going after suspected downloaders. Often they "catch" other peoples copyrights in their fishing expeditions. Perfect example is in your statement: Neither 'Heroes' or 'House' would fall under the RIAA, being NBC and Fox held copyrights, but the copyright laws are so mucked up that its almost impossible for even the people who study it to clear up. The other point most people forget is not all downloading is illegal, some of it falls under fair use. The reasoning behind the universities protecting their students are two fold: 1) The RIAA's cases tend to be over zealous and often disruptive to the network. 2) If the RIAA can push hard enough they may be able to claim the university is enabling the copyright infringement and then charge the university as an accomplices.

Re:Scathing indictment?

[Mike1024]

The issue is that people who are accused of downloading music should get a fair hearing, the chance to defend themselves (mistakes do happen) and face a punishment proportionate to the "damage" done to industry and society by their "crime".

Well, I did say that some of the fines talked about on slashdot are inexplicably large, and that people who are wrongly accused should be entitled to reclaim reasonable costs for their defence.

I was under the impression that you could go to court, demonstrate (through inspection by an impartial expert third party) that there was no evidence of file sharing on your computer (e.g. your MP3s are ripped from CDs, or are from iTunes, or are distributed as MP3s by the copyright holders; and you don't have KaZaA or something installed with your MP3 directory shared, your BitTorrent client has only legitimate downloads running, etc.) and you'd be let off. It should take an afternoon, and cost no more than a few hundred dollars, which the record labels have to pay after you are found innocent.

Does it not work like that?

Re:Scathing indictment?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

If record labels have enough evidence to get courts to issue subpoenas (they could easily gather this much evidence), and have a court-issued subpoena, I hardly call that "hardly no evidence". Correct. What they have cannot be characterized as "hardly no evidence".

I would characterize it as "no evidence at all". They have zero evidence that the defendant infringed their copyright. They have admitted under oath that their "investigation" does not detect any individual doing anything.

The reason the judges have signed orders authorizing the subpoenas is because the proceedings are ex parte -- there is no opposition, no one even knows it is going on. I.e., the judges have been hoodwinked. Occasionally, though, some judges see through it.

Just a cursory overview

[betterunixthanunix]

This is nothing more than a mere glance at the true extend of the RIAA's campaign. The number of students the RIAA has sued, most of whom couldn't hope to pay off a settlement or a lawyer to bring the case to trial, numbers way into the thousands. The truly insidious part is just that: the RIAA has billions of dollars available to sue people, and could keep the cases in litigation until the defendant just runs out of money and is forced to settle. There is no due process here, there never could be in cases like these.

Re:when

[CastrTroy]

This coming from the same guy who complained that only 1 in 5 people who downloaded Saul William's album, which he produced, chose to pay for it. I find that to be a pretty good ratio considering they didn't even offer a way to sample the album without downloading the entire thing.

Re:True, but not as recent as you think

[flappinbooger]

And if I die from it, I am not going to whine like a little baby and blame the company I bought them from.

Because, of course, you would be dead...

Re:when

[multisync]

I find that to be a pretty good ratio

I must say, he really swings from one extreme - "steal, steal ... and steal some more" - to the other - ISP tax to do things normally covered by Fair Use. How bout we meet somewhere in the middle, Trent?

These guys made $140,000 in three months. If they used opportunities like the interview you linked to put out a positive message, those numbers could grow, maybe to the point where they could "cover the costs and perhaps make a living doing it." Hell, they could even partner with one of those evil record labels at a later data and release a physical CD ala In Rainbows.

Whining to interviewers that four fifths of the people who downloaded the album you put on your website "stole" it and proposing to tax everyone - even those who don't listen to pop music - doesn't entice me to buy - or steal - his album.

Re:True, but not as recent as you think

[QuantumG]

Umm, if you could copy cigarettes would you consider it necessary to invent a law to prevent it or would you consider that an insane law that could only exist if the government were corrupt and taking bribes from cigarette manufacturers?

Back in the day?

[fahrbot-bot]

From TFA: Years ago, college students were our best customers," he said. "Now they're among our worst customers."

Perhaps 'cause:

• Those college students of yore are all growed up now?
• People had fewer choices for purchasing (or acquiring)?
• Music today isn't what it once was (a generalization, but perhaps with some truth)?
• Music was more art than commodity?
  
• Any / all of the above?

Sure, I use to buy music when I was younger, but I don't buy much anymore -- nor have I ever downloaded anything. I've purchased 3 CDs in the last 10 years. What I already have is either better than what's new, or I'm simply just happy with it. In the car, I either listen to a CD or NPR; commercial radio is crap.

Great music never goes out of style. Perhaps some of the younger crowd have music from their parents :-) I mean, would you really want to listen to "Oops, I did it Again" over anything in your parents collection? How about instead of a baby whining on an airplane - oh, wait, that could be Britney too.