Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says No Mystery In Rash of College Complaints
Doug Lederman writes "As colleges receive exploding numbers of complaints from recording companies about alleged illegal downloading of music files, theories abound about whether the industry is changing its criteria, aggressively targeting users who merely make downloaded music available to others rather than actual infringers. But after weeks of silence, the president of the RIAA says No: Better technology, he asserts, is merely resulting in better enforcement."
RIAA: *Jedi hand wave* Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
What a colassal house of cards the RIAA has built for itself. They are doing everything BUT look at the core reasons why people are buying fewer and fewer CD's. It's got far less to do with having to pay for it than it does with the overall quality of their pap...I mean products.
Better technology? You mean the better technology that's making you deliver digital content to the masses in DRM Free formats the consumer demands?
Free childcare classifieds: www.carebrite.com
It's not better technology, it's better targeting. College students are 'soft targets'. They have limited funds, hence they are more liable to share music and less likely to be able to fight back. The RIAA doesn't want to try and extort from someone capable of fighting back, you know.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Previous technology: Flip a coin. Heads -> you are innocent.
New_and_Improved technology: Throw a die. 1 -> you are innocent.
So how long before they target kindergartens? Those little bastards aren't buying any CD's, clearly they're stealing them!
This isn't about technology. The RIAA's aggresive war against users isn't based on good or bad technology. It's just a bunch of lies.
* An IP address can't be used to pinpoint a user, and that's a FACT. What does that have to do with better technology?
* The companies they hired to do their investigations weren't authorized by the government. That's ILLEGAL. What does that have to do with better technology?
I've always thought you should use plenty of soap and water after contact with the RIAA. You never know what you'll catch.
steampunk web design
Principal Skinner: There's no mystery about what happened to Groundskeeper Willy. Why, he simply disappeared. Now let's have no more questions about this bizarre coverup.
First against the wall when the revolution comes
I, myself, am creating art. Photos and a bit of music. Also some mediocre short stories. While my products are definitely not good enough yet to ask money for them, I can understand the desire to earn a living by doing what you like the most.
I think that all digital art will become free for those who do not want to earn money from it. If a magazine wants to use one of your photos or if a corporation wants to use your music for an add, you should get paid. The rest will come from donations from fans or derived products.
But yes, you wont be able to earn as much money that way and the RIAA will milk the old system dry before adapting. This is logical. Even the oil industry will pull something like that. I'm sure of it.
They got a faster laser printer.
aggressively targeting users who merely make downloaded music available to others rather than actual infringers
Aren't the folks making music available the actual infringers? (Assuming the conversation is limited to music copyrighted by an RIAA member and not openly traded such as in the case of bands who allow taping and trading of tapes of live shows.)
Who are the actual infringers, if not the folks making the music available to others?
"Better technology," any of us with a brain asserts, "is merely resulting in better clients. Next up: IP obfuscation"
morons
9 thousand lawyers versus 90 million technologically savvy, music hungry, poor teenagers
place your wagers
you lose, morons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Really, the RIAA is just casting a wider net. By putting out more notices:
A) They are more likely to deter casual, nontechnical users who get them, most of whom will either stop or reduce their P2P use.
B) They are more likely to scare others; e.x. "Yo, did you hear? Joe Smith got a warning about music downloading!".
C) Many colleges and ISPs (Dartmouth and Optimum Online, at least) will often reduce the speed of account holders who have been the target of DCMA letters.
D) For settlement offers, the wider the net, the more fish you catch. If people put up an ounce of resistance, just drop the extortion attempt and move on to the next guy.
Not really that surprising. The technology hasn't improved, the RIAA is just sending out more letters.
I am glad to see University official trying to stop the inquisition of the RIAA.
I thought that witch hunting was illegal in USA. I thought that harassment was more evil than sharing.
I am a happy Canadian that know I can live my live without harassment, in the security of my home without being sued for sharing with my friends.
The RIAA do evil thing and I am sure, more they act with the capital sins, more the people will arise and stand together against those evils doing. I hope that everybody blog about the freedom of expression, the liberty of sharing and the rights to uses technology for the better of ours civilization.
Anybody that want to constraint us, anybody that is hunting people for what they are doing, any organization that destroy the financial life of the people should burn in the eternal flame of the raging shout of the civilization.
In short, I had paid my computer, I had paid my electricity, I had paid my ISP bandwith, I get technology to share at the speed of light and for the sake of the expression, I let my computer express all those bits and bites for anybody that do the same. This is the new era of civilization, where Idea, where thoughts are pure electricity that are shared together at the speed of light.
It's easier and cheaper for us to get press by targeting university students using our new-and-improved technology [waves hand impressively] than it is to do the hard work of tracking down the commercial pirates that might already have a lawyer or the money to pay for one.
Until someone offers better sound quality than CDs for downloads (DRM free, of course, and ideally using patent free algorithms, flac for example), I will continue to buy CDs. That doesn't mean I support the RIAA, I don't, they are scum. It means that when I buy my music I want a built in backup, music downloads don't offer that, as far as I'm aware. If there were a reliable source that let me store my tunes online that might be a different story, but even then I wouldn't trust the bastards to stay in business.
Salut,
Jacques
... the with all the press about this topic, the "college" KIDS would wise up a bit.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
As long as they are not facing serious consequences for filing lawsuits against dead people, the homeless, children, and people who don't own computers.... this will only get worse.
Really, the RIAA is just casting a wider net. By putting out more notices:
E) Students move from a visable P-P application back to secure sneaker-net trading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet
Instead of a dribble of songs from slow university connections, a few DVD's, loaded iPods, and USB external hard drives get lent outside of trackable channels.
For my middle school kids, it's the norm. They have Comcast and no P-P software. It's all sneaker net and iPods. I'm suprised the RIAA isn't bringing up the RIO lawsuit again and try to fight iPods and other external hard drives as massive tools of infringement. After all, in their book, tools for making availiable is a crime.
The truth shall set you free!
...is that the RIAA lawyers know that their cash cow is about to go poof very soon. Therefore, they are getting all the milk they can from the cow before it leaves the barn.
"This is America... where the will of the few outweigh the outrage of the many..." - Unknown
...is the number of false positives that are popping up.
I'm responsible for DMCA notices at my campus, and after a 1.5 year lull without a single one, I've received over 2 dozen, none of which are attributable to any IP given out by our DHCP server. One IP was a terminal server with no access to the internet.
(I'm posting anonymously because I don't like the spotlight. Talk to any college staff member and you'll get similar comments about this recent flurry of notices.)
The RIAA are trying to get as many cases on the books as possible before any ruling in their current legal battles is made. They probably think they will loose and will push for the judgement NOT to be retroactive. i.e. all current cases can go forward and they are free to extort monies to settle or going to trial. It's called hedging your bets...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
I wonder if maybe they are suing more because of the numerous pending litigation fights they have against them. Maybe they see their window shrinking because if they lose 1 or 2 of those cases then it will prevent them from suing more people. They might be trying to maximize settlement revenue and if any of these new people bring a suit, RIAA can stall them until the court cases that already exist are settled and then drop if necessary. Does any website have wording of the RIAA settlement offers? I wonder if they've changed it to say that if they agree to the settlement then they cannot be part of any class action lawsuit that comes up.
RIAA needs to take a step back and look at their business model. Ford used to create cars with bolts and pieces that were so unique that nobody made part for their products except them. That backfired at some point and they started to go with the flow. Musicians need to get a grip on where the money that is paid for their music goes. Reduce the big overhead of managers and promotions people and get back to making music. If you can do live performances and get rid of the ticket brokers overhead, you can make enough to live on with just a few concerts in medium sized venues each year. If you can not perform live, then you best not expect to make a killing in the industry since you probably do not have real talent, but just know someone that can mix down anything and make it sound good.
In most cases, when you make the black market seem more dangerous, and there is still a demand for an item, the illegal market will grow. If CD's were priced to make enough to cover costs of production and a small amount for the musician and composer, they would sell like crazy, especially if there was something that set it apart from the mainstream duplicated junk that is generally available. It is much the way the TV industry has gone, 3 networks with reasonable quality, then it became 200 channels, most of which is not worth burning the screen by playing. Quality will win out in the end, if there is a reasonable distribution method and pricing for it.
Are the colleges to be held culpable? If a student commits a real crime, are the police going to go to the dean and complain, or are they going to go kick in the student in question's door?
If a kid beat another kid with the power cable from a college owned PC, does that make the college responsible? If a kid downloaded some music using the college's T1 line does that make the college responsible?
Also the RIAA isn't a government agency. It doesn't have any more rights than anyone else. Sure in our society anyone can sue anyone else, and the RIAA can complain to anyone they want, but could a college get a restraining order, or a counter suit for harassment?
Conversely, there's a lot of bands who are just as happy to have fans download their music for free. NIN is releasing their new album on their website for free http://www.nin.com/ Radio head posted their album with a "Tip Jar" Other bands like Moe encourage fans to record concerts and share the music. Seems like the Record Labels and the RIAA are just in between the bands and the fans pissing everyone off.
Eschew Obfuscation
I'd like a marketing firm to calculate how much damage the recording industry has done in terms of public relations. I think the accumulated ill-will is larger than their perceived losses.
When using intimidation tactics, isn't it better to increase your pressure as it gets closer to finals for students- hold back until mid semester and then bomb the schools and students . . . Nothing would hasten a quick settlement like the pressure of upcoming finals.
Overseas on any trips and be sure you've got your papers in order, and any discussion ready for US Customs.
Note that the RIAA is no longer referring to MediaSentry as its "investigator", instead referring to it as a "contractor" or a "vendor". I wonder if they think that will make their legal problems go away.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
they are just trying to get as many as they can while they can.
this little cash pot will go dark for 3 months as students head home or off campus now that the year is about over for them.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
Honestly pirating anything has been around for years, they will never stop it, and unfortunately the 15 year old kids who sit in mommies basement distributing movies music etc, are 100x as smart as anything the riaa comes up with. For all the billions spent stopping pirated music, such as ip filtering, does anyone realize that encryption would be the easiest way for these kids to bypass that? Then the RIAA will spend another million employing coders to do it again just to have it broke by a 16 year old in 2 weeks. Can anyone say Blu-ray?
How stupid can a summary be.
The RIAA can't tell the difference between the two!
And that's the problem - and flaw - in all their cases to date.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Let's get real for a moment here folks. Do you really believe anything that the RIAA actually tells you?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
it's akin to you owning a bookstore and people coming in, copying the books, and then leaving. You lose nothing, but gain nothing either.
In the case of music file duplication, you gain *exposure*. That is important, because the more of it you have, the more people will pay to see your live shows, to buy t-shirts with your logo on them, and to buy box-sets with autographed art and stuff.
I hate argument-by-analogy...none of these analogies fit very well at all. *Anything* that likens information to physical property is misguided and misleading from the get-go. Copyright Infringement is neither theft nor altruism...it just is what it is, and if you don't understand what it is, these bad analogies won't help you. The same goes for the new kinds of business models that are developing around information products.
2d6. 1 -> you are innocent
-
This is so wrong, and the RIAA continues to get away with it because they refuse to admit to any errors in their methods. If the unreliability of the RIAA IP identification methods got wide circulation they might not be able to pursue any of these cases based on IP address/timestamp information alone.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That would be fine by them, because it doesn't have the same potential or speed as downloading.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
House two houses down was bot last month for 625.000 for son to attend Uof O.
Father is a CFO, annual comp circa 3,000,000.
House next to that had 725.000 put into it for son to attend U of O.
Father surgeon in Tuscon.
Just poor impoverished students.
When you download RIAA music, you are stealing the chance that an RIAA company will be able to sell you that music. If they catch you, you have to pay the man.
Now some might argue: "Hey! The chance that I might buy their music belongs to me, not the RIAA. Why should I have to pay them for something that belongs to me? They want me to pay them for not doing something (not buying their cr*p) that I don't want to do just because they think I ought to do it."
Others might argue: "Hey! The value of the chance that I might buy their music is zero. I wouldn't pay a nickel for it. Why should I have to pay them for the loss of something that's not worth anything?"
These arguments are to no avail and the Judge will have your ass. In the RIAA mindthink: "All your base are belong to us!"
I call your attention to the What's interesting ... thread above in this discussion where the poster is pointing out just how unreliable the RIAA method of identifying IP addresses and timestamps is proving to be in the real world. If this is the only method the RIAA has at their disposal to identify lawsuit targets, and it's as widely bad as the poster states, this might serve to rip apart the RIAA cases at the very beginning.
While not an exact analogy, although the basis of it in terms of unreliability is the same, imagine if people tried to use fingerprint data in court in a world where 1 out of 10 people had the same fingerprints. No court would accept that. If the RIAA is so provably wrong so often, then maybe the courts shouldn't be accepting this data as identification of anything at all.
(Note: this would also explain the two tier system of the RIAA cases. First a multiply joined John Doe case to get identities, followed by extortion, followed by individual cases. The first case filters out all the bad or unidentifiable addresses when the ISP says they can't identify a user for that IP address/timestamp. Of course, if the RIAA is following this stragety then they already know how flawed their methods of identification are, and are using this method to compensate for it by having addresses that at least identify somebody.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Actually, you'd be surprised. Try reading your consumer ISP contract some time. Optimum Online sells service at 15mbps/2mpbs down/up but will only guarantee 1/10th of each. If they provide you with 1.6mbps/,3mpbs for 15/2 service, they are providing you with enough broadband legally. That is typically what they will "cap" you to on OOL.
Fucking lamer asshole
That would be fine by them, because it doesn't have the same potential or speed as downloading.
Are you kidding? On Comcast, you are lucky to get a complete transfer. A CD full (Torrented the Haredy Heron distro as a test against FTP) takes about 10 hours and seeding dies completely when the transfer is complete. FTP took under 2 hours to get the ISO. Torrent took 9 hours. Backing up my kids 30 Gig Creative Zen took about 40 minutes before sending it off for headphone jack replacement. Meeting friends and sharing popular music is the quick way to fill a 30 Gig player. It's much faster than any other method.
Sneaker net ping times are terrible, and the search engine sucks, but once a transfer starts, the bandwidth can't be beat. In a school setting, it's not too hard to find someone with your music taste to combine resources with.
P-P simply provides a better catalog. It doesn't provide fast service. Try filling a 30 Gig player on Comcast using any P-P sometime. P-P is broken. As a bonus, my kids are way under the RIAA radar for low hanging fruit. They are out of sight. Until they get schoolyard DHS style check-in to examine all portable media arriving at school, the sneaker net will continue.
The truth shall set you free!
The record industry has recently suggested that they should get a cut of profits on all hard drive sales.
When they do, then they will have to face the fact that they sold licenses with the drives which severly damage their position in court.
I buy 2 types of CDR discs. Data CDs and Muscic CDs. I put copies of music on music CDs. The royalty has been paid. These are the MP3 CDs I use in the car and DVD player. I thank the industry for providing the low cost licenses.
The truth shall set you free!
The fact is though, that these students have to "illegally" copy songs off of somebodies ipod, rip songs off of a cd and copy them when they aren't supposed to, or use limewire/torrents to download these files. Maybe the RIAA thinks that it is easier to stop people from sharing these files over the internet, because you can't really effectively stop sneakernets...
Also, here in Canada, the music industry gets a few cents off of every blank CD purchase, to offset the cost of piracy.
Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
Once they cap you, however, then they cannot claim that they're selling you 15mbps/2mpbs down/up any longer - even if they virtually never provided it to you in the first place. They now know that any claim to higher speeds is fraudulent.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I wonder how long it will be before the RIAA files a reverse-class-action lawsuit, e.g. RIAA vs. The Students of x University. If they prove just one student at the university pirated music, they get to collect $1000 from each student in damages, which is payed by the University and passed on to students as increased tuition. *shiver*
In typical slashdot fashion, the author doesn't understand the issue and this:
>>aggressively targeting users who merely make downloaded music available to others rather than actual infringers
proves it.
Copyright infringement (as it applies to music) involves distributing other people's work or taking a copy of the work and incorporating all or part of it in your own music, then distributing it. In the latter case, you are distributing the original author's work by extension. Copyright is made up of 2 words, copy and right. If you own the copyright, you own the right to make and/or distribute and/or sell copies of the recorded work.
Simply downloading the copy isn't a crime. It's making it available for other people to download that causes you to cross the line. Most people that get busted, are indeed downloaders, but they are stupid enough to share what they download back out to the internet.
Amazing... it's such a simple concept. Making the music available to others for download *is the infringement*. The RIAA has never targeted people that simply download the music and don't share. They don't care about them. They are after the people that shared it to them.
Why? It's completely impossible to find someone that doesn't share, and they aren't guilty of a crime because they aren't unlawfully distributing. It's when you share the file and it shows up in the download lists of other people that you become visible to the RIAA.
Get it right 8)
-AC
Also, here in Canada, the music industry gets a few cents off of every blank CD purchase, to offset the cost of piracy.
In the USA, it is on music CDrs.
The fact is though, that these students have to "illegally" copy songs off of somebodies ipod
That's debatable. You paid the royalty for the blank media. Now you use the pre-paid royalty to legaly obtain the media covered by the royalty. Collecting a royalty and providing no licensed media is theft of real money, not simply a copyright violation.
If i'm not mistaken, in Canada, they don't bother you for the songs you have downloaded. They only try to stop people from putting the songs online for others. (distribution).
If they do the royalty here on stuff other than music CDR media, then having copies of music instead of the originals just changed legal status like it is in Canada.
Having a collection of music on your hard drive in Canada is legal regardless of how it got there. In the US, having music on your hard drive has the requirement of a purchase someplace, from either iTunes, or a rip from a physical CD you own.
The truth shall set you free!
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. - Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1996).
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
But they have to prove that you didn't buy that music. An affirmative defense is that your music CD's were stolen. They would have a very, very hard time busting you for music you merely have a copy of, the burden of proof is too high.
Even if they could show that for example the media had "Downloaded from MuzicWarez - Your place for pirated music," in its metadata, they'd have a hard time convincing a jury to convict you if your defense was that you downloaded that track after you lost the original album.
However, distribution is something they can bust you on, because unless you're an online music retailer, you don't have any license to be distributing music electronically.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
I buy data CD-Rs to put my music on for that very reason.
There has actually been an entire article (posted by NYCL), devoted to those types of arguments. I would look it up but slashdot search is down and I don't know a good way to find it on google.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
I learned what they did to my prospective business plans with the DMCA, I watched them launch a domestic terrorism campaign with their lawsuits, and I'm watching them indirectly foist orwellian "great firewall of china" clones onto institutions like emory university.
I will never, ever, for as long as I live, buy a single thing they produce. Further, I intend to make a great deal of money, and require any recipients of my inheritance not buy RIAA cd's as a conditiion of my will.
I will train any children, should I have them, in the techniques of battle against these bastards.
The RIAA has done with my generation what the democratic party did with a generation of southern people when they abandoned the dixie-crat platform and began pushing on civil rights reforms in the mid 20th century.
that was ages ago when my mother was a little kid. Anyone want to take bets on what century georgia will come back to a democratic presidential outcome? : ) This is the bleak future the RIAA has made for themselves.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Ah, but how profitable is an artist's tour going to be if nobody knows who they are?
But since the MafiAA doesn't try out new acts any more, that's not a risk. And all of the "promotional" work done by the label is charged back to the band, again. The MafiAA don't actually pay for shit.
Mind you, one of my all-time favorite bands was pretty much snuffed out by Capitol - had their album produced and recorded and then just sat on it for a couple years without releasing it, until finally the band called it quits.
Many bands have this happen, usually because the label's holding them slave/hostage trying to force them to re-up for an even longer/worse contract.
They also backed the production of that album, taking the risk that it wouldn't sell. They need to recover those costs.
That's what the sales price is for, not duplicitously using FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTING to hide the profits and try to charge the costs to the band AS WELL.
The goal of the MafiAA companies is simple: milk for every penny. It's slave labor, unless you hit it super-big (metallica/etc). They don't ever take a real risk - the times someone didn't hit it ultra-big, the labels "made money" off of them anyways, then forced them through bankruptcy with all the charge-backs. This happens even to the big names.
You want to know why there are so many so-called "singer/songwriter" acts these days? Because it's one of the few ways out - get one song you "wrote" onto the album, and they have to pay you writers' royalties. You want to know why half or more of the album is shit? Because desperately trying to save their own asses financially, every bandmember wrote at least one track on the album. And it doesn't matter, because the MafiAA's dirty accounting always comes out a rape-job anyways.
I believe the relevant quote is:
That old quote is out dated from the days of CDR and Floppy transfer.
It should be updated to the times.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of middle school children on foot armed with 30 or 60 Gig iPods. - Technician Slashdot (2008)
The truth shall set you free!
But they have to prove that you didn't buy that music. An affirmative defense is that your music CD's were stolen.
Wrong. They don't sell music. They license it. Read the license terms that state something for private home use only.
I buy licenses in the 100 pack. I don't own music.
The truth shall set you free!
Twitter, your free speech area is 500m that way, in the middle of Digg.
Get moving!
If we can just hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Jackpot! -- The Zapper
Shit, they finally have better enforcement! The way TFO makes it out to seem is that WE'RE manipulating the law to make it work for us, which may or may not be true, but I believe that the cause for which it is initiated is good. This better enforcement is being used to help bring down a tyrant that has monopoly'd music artists for a looong time. Granted, my argument here scarily mirrors the argument for going to Iraq, which I strongly oppose :) Therefore, I can at least consider myself human, for better or worse.
I definitely think the RIAA has hit a brick wall lately, which is good, because this will force the two sides in this argument to both evolve into something more beneficial for everybody.
...it is a 20 sided dice?
I remember the days when I used to buy CDs. I felt good about that even if 80% of the songs were not the ones I wanted. These days, the RIAA has left such a sour feeling that I don't buy many if any CDs and I know I definitely do not ant to be ripped off by the various DRM schemes that take your money but eventually cut off you access to the music.
Only boring people are ever bored.
When I was at high school I went in carrying a bag of cassettes. We'd trade and duplicate those. Half an album on each side of a tape, laboriously copied on dual-deck recorders, crappy quality, but in the mid-nineties it was how it was done. I still have a stack of old Blur and Pulp tapes from way back, gathering dust somewhere in my parents' house.
Fifteen years or so later my sister is at the same high school. She goes in carrying a four gigabyte USB stick, a DVD containing every Number One hit there ever was, a mobile phone with more capacity than the PC I had back then and with the ability to transfer any of its contents wirelessly to any other phone at any time.
Fifteen years from now kids will be swapping the entire history of recorded music at one go, and keeping it on memory chips the size of postage stamps.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Half an album on each side of a tape, laboriously copied on dual-deck recorders, crappy quality, but in the mid-nineties it was how it was done.
I was in the military in the 1970's. We had a better budget and didn't use dual decks for that very reason. Top end hi-fi was the norm in dorm. It's where I picked up most of my gear. Too bad much of the stuff now is cheaper with lower specs. THD and S/N ratios should have improved over the years, but sadly have not for the most part. Cheaper high wattage is the norm now.
The truth shall set you free!
Examine all portable media?
I have a 4GB Micro-SD memory card in my phone. That's the kind of capacity typical computers had when Napster first took off, so it can easily store a pretty decent music collection. Certainly plenty to be bringing into school for trade in a day, even if your collection proper is on your home PC.
And if I put it on top of a penny, it doesn't even go over the sides. In among the vast amount of assorted junk the average schoolboy carries about each day, what are your chances of finding it?
Now estimate the capacities of the equivalent devices in 2010. 2015. 2020...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
And if I put it on top of a penny, it doesn't even go over the sides. In among the vast amount of assorted junk the average schoolboy carries about each day, what are your chances of finding it?
My point was the schoolyard inspections will never materialise due to manpower and equipment costs and very low returns. The chances of finding it on the first day are great as the number of obvious devices are rampant.
It's like shooting birds sitting on a telephone wire. It's an easy shot for the first one, after that, the rapidly scattering flock is much harder to get.
Now estimate the capacities of the equivalent devices in 2010. 2015. 2020...
Which was the point of my original quote modified to the bandwidth of a school child walking to school. It will only get worse for the RIAA and members. The next gen to hit the college campuses will be better trained in staying out of the RIAA gunsights. The RIAA is still in it's first shot and the flock is taking flight. They may have more lawsuits because they have better tools, but the counter-tools are on the way. Part of it is offline.
The truth shall set you free!
here is the link (if anyone is still paying attention)
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/28/0141221
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz