Slashdot Mirror
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."
More and more, corporate America has been ready and willing to screw over the "consumer" in order to make more money. The media industry's stranglehold on their particular market is a stockholder's dream come true.
As long as people are willing to shell out the $$ for the crap they keep shoveling out, not much is going to change.
So it seems like the controversy if the rights to the TV series may actually be a facade that's used to avoid citizens to be too well-informed about the dark future that lies ahead.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
A large predatory animal can be quite dangerous once wounded (by lack of CD sales) and will attack anything
Its not the years, its the mileage
"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.
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.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
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.
Palm trees and 8
How something is 'described' by someone else with an agenda matters very little (unless a lot of people fall for it). It's just as reasonable to 'describe' millions of college students as "people who want to force their favorite artists to provide them with entertainment for free." Which is more accurate? That performers, and the studios they work with, want to actually "force" someone to buy something, or that many people who swear they love a particular performer or recording artist are none the less happy to rip of that person's work, despite the wishes of the very performer they claim to respect?
Neither description covers everyone. But saying that a recording artist wants to "force" people to pay for the entertainment they're providing is a lot like saying that a movie theater wants to force people to actually pay for a ticket on their way in to see a movie. It's absurd. No one is forcing you to listen to a recording, and no one is forcing you to see or hear any other performance, either. Don't be a consumer of it, and no need to pay for it. Except, of course, those countries that are insane enough to think it's reasonable to levy taxes (and thus, literally force people to pay) which are then spread around to artists - whether or not the people paying the taxes would ever want to be entertained by those artists or not. That's the only "forced to pay for entertainment" that it's worth talking about. Otherwise we may as well talk about how grocery stores are forcing their customer to pay for what they want, or how a chef is forcing his customers to pay for the creative services she provides.
Don't use the word "force" when it doesn't apply. Don't want to pay for Bruce Springteen's latest recording? Then don't acquire it, unless HE chooses to give it to you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Fleur de Sel
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The day we use technology to unite in collective effort, disseminate intelligence and wisdom to dissolve ignorance and share a single intention then the consumer the citizen will take control as master.
The "Many", the consumers combined wealth far exceeds that of the "few" because the consumer delivers real value every day.
Many of those individuals or corporations that control vast wealth only do so because we perceive the fiat currency, the intangible symbolic units to have value. As soon as this illusion is destroyed their power is gone.
We the people control the cash flow of business and labor, the worker produces the products and services that make the world go around and this is where the real tangible value is.
We the people are very powerful, but we have been blinded to our own power by an illusion created by those that benefit from the current systems and don't want them to change.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
So this morning I got up and waged war on eye crud. I followed shortly after with a war on two fronts. A war on full bladders and a war on clean toilets. Next I waged war on not being at my computer. Then I went to war on dark monitors. Then I declared war on Firefox.exe. Then I went to war with slashdot's servers and blank Firefox pages. Then slashdot's text had the audacity to wage photon based war on my retinas! In retaliation, I counterattacked with a covert war on the Reply button, then followed up with a brief war on empty subject text boxes. Then I engaged in a somewhat protracted war on empty comment boxes. Now in closing, I'll stage a blitzkrieg on the submit button and preemptively declare victory.
Question everything
> The way I see it is: If the content is so terrible, don't download it.
I don't. Wouldn't be caught dead listening to their music. However, there are a couple of factors you've neglected:
1) They sue the wrong people often enough. Remember that guy who didn't have a computer? I wonder if MediaSentry gave one of their boilerplate expert reports in that lawsuit? Because it would be really interesting if they had.
2) Anything popular is crap, according to simple statistics. That's a contradiction in terms, right? But a really good song might be liked by 80-90% of the people who hear it (the actual percentages don't matter, just accept those numbers as an example). So now we have 10-20% of the people who hear it who don't like it to some degree, a few of whom will likely hate it. Now realize that every song has a different percentage and that percentage is made up of different people. So the more popular you are, the more people there are who hate your music. In fact, the more people who hear it, the more likely it is that there are people who hate every single bit of music you've produced.
It may be counter-intuitive, but it's pretty clear that the more popular your music is, the more it's heard, so there are more people who hear it and hate it. It's the "Curse of Popularity"
There's a counter-point to this, too, BTW. If enough people hear an awful song, there's likely to be at least *one* guy who really loves it (probably the guy who wrote it). Thus, you have niche music that's horrible to most people, but which attracts a tiny fan following which absolutely loves the music. This is how you explain the Indee crowd.
Oh, and nothing here is exclusive to music. You can get the same thing with wine snobs, art, sex or anything else based on personal taste.
"why can't anonymous declare war on the RIAA, they are a far bigger threat to society than Scientology."
Scientologists get angry, real angry. makes for better lulz. as they say...
10 rant against RIAA
20 generic comment that piracy is still wrong
30 tangent about DRMs originating in Nazi Germany
40 someone yells Godwin's law
50 next RIAA article is posted
60 goto 10
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
The media and entertainment companies' stranglehold on a dying business model is hardly a stockholders' dream.
Warner Music (WMG) stock, 2006: ~$30, Today, ~$8.00; DreamWorks SKG (DWA), 2005: ~$40, Today, ~$25; CBS Broadcasting (CBS) 2000: ~$45, Today: ~$25.
The market conditions surrounding the film, music and broadcasting industries are incredibly volatile right now. I'll grant you that they're pursuing mostly counterproductive strategies in their efforts to stabilize themselves, and DRM + consumer abuse is hardly helping matters. Still in all, mere perception that (Is Media Corporation) == (Rolling in Money and Laughing Maniacally) is a gratifying mental image, but it isn't exactly the case.
Pi Ran Out
Because, of course, you would be dead...
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Yeah, They are hackers on steroids! There is a big difference!
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
More and more, the RIAA war on download piracy makes me think of the government's war on drugs. Not a perfect analogy, but think about it:
One war spends vast sums of money to interdict a tiny percentage of illegal drugs, while overall use continues to rise. The other war spends vast sums of money to sue a tiny percentage of illegal downloaders, while overall downloading continues to rise.
Both wars target users who do not consider what they are doing to be immoral or wrong, and who will likely continue their activities despite any laws passed against them.
Both wars have generalized popular support from Mr. and Mrs. America, who are ignorant of or blind to the tactics involved and the overall futility and low success rate.
Both wars snag innocent people in their dragnets. If you happen to share a house with someone who has drugs, you can be arrested. Likewise, if you happen to own a computer on which someone else downloaded copyrighted material, you can be sued.
Both wars are stubbornly persistent and deny reality. The government refuses to acknowledge that legalizing and regulating recreational drugs would result in less crime, fewer overdoses, and far more money available for treatment and prevention and education. The RIAA refuses to acknowledge that digital technology has made their system of distribution and compensation rapidly obsolete and in need of a quantum change.
I could go on and on, and y'all could probably come up with some of your own parallels. The only real difference is that being caught up in the war on drugs can land you in the slammer for a long time, while illegal downloading will not.
Yet.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
I must say, he really swings from one extreme - "steal, steal
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.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Perhaps 'cause:
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.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I must say, he really swings from one extreme - "steal, steal
Trent never said he supported an ISP tax: "I left the conversation thinking I'd cleared up the misconception that I thought the entire release of "niggytardust" was a failure. Well, it appears the story was written before I was involved, and I woke up the next day to find out I'm a supporter of an ISP tax. Thanks, CNET." From http://www.nin.com/index.html#2882965178223012038
I see dead pixels!
Well, here's what the blog CastrTroy linked to has to say on that:
And here's the relevent quote, again according to the blog:
Is Trent saying that those are not his words? Because if they are, it sounds a lot to me like he's endorsing a tax on ISP use as a means of compensating artists, just like the tax Canadians pay on blank CDs.
The problem with these taxes is that they are levied against everyone, including people who don't "consume" Trent's music. They also penalize - and put at a disadvantage - those who use blank CDs or Internet connections in the running of their own small business or even the production of their own art.
It's great that Trent is out there talking about these issues, I just think he needs to take a more moderate point of view. Somewhere between stealing everything and taxing everyone, there is a solution.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Don't forget, among the other recent RIAA college sins, their quickly pulled back "audit package" based on GPL'd software for the colleges to use in tracking song swapping. It was another clear low point in the RIAA's campaign of terror and extortion.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"to identify the person using the IP address at that time"
Mike,
this is where it all falls apart.
You can tell the *account* that has the IP address, but in many households, NAT'ing means at least 2, if not more, computers share that address. In my house, for example, there are 6 computers, and 8 people who share in IP address.
So you can't tell the person.
Can you file a civil lawsuit against the account holder? It may be possible, but the burden of proof, I imagine, is much higher. That's why for speeding/red-light camera tickets they fine the car owner, but not the driver. Primarily because they don't know who was driving. We have 2 cars and 4 drivers in my house. If a ticket shows up, it's hard for *us* to figure who was driving.
So the "evidence", in the most scrupulous of circumstances is at best unclear.
That's just another problem for the RIAA.
To recap:
1) The RIAA doesn't seem to be able to gather accurate IP information
2) Even if they do, there is no chain of custody, that is, there is no attempt to determine if you actually downloaded the song(s) they claimed
3) There is no chain of custody of evidence to show that you downloaded anything copyrighted
4) The RIAA cannot demonstrate they represent the copyright on any song they're suing you for
5) The IP address does not address the person who committed the crime.
Is that enough for you? Any one of those produce reasonable doubt in my mind.
If $$$ were king, they would figure out what the consumer wants and provide huge archives of back catalog at cheap prices and people would flock to the offerings for stuff their 30 to 60 Gig media players. How many people hit the national average and only buy 2 CD's per year? Their fight to keep the ASP high has killed the sales as much as anything. There is competition for the entertainment dollar. An upgrade to broadband, better car, bigger house, new flat screen, etc are replacing the CD's as a consumer choice item.
Wold you buy more than $25 worth of music in a year if it was 5-10 cents/track?
The truth shall set you free!
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
But if we allow the cartels to push a flat tax you know they'll just take the money and use it for nastier DRM and more lawsuits. The problem with them is simply one word---GREED.They can never charge enough,they can never give too little,and they can never rip off enough folks.Until that changes I will simply avoid the **AA crap like the plague and look for older releases of games and software that won't bone my machine with DRM. The sad part is they will simply use that fact that I and all the folks I convince to avoid buying their garbage that their lowering profits are just proof that they need nastier laws and move evil copyrights.As it is now,what is it? Something like a couple of centuries before something falls out of copyright? And you just KNOW they are never going to let that damned Mickey Mouse be public domain,so they'll just keep raising it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.