Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Says No Mystery In Rash of College Complaints

Posted by timothy on from the we-were-just-bored dept.

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."

22 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. In other words... by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:In other words... by CSMatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. People still listen to it. Whether or not they consider it good enough to warrant purchasing is the real question.

    2. Re:In other words... by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't say people downloaded because it was crap. I said fewer people are buying entire CD's when 90% of said CD is crap and maybe has one or two good songs.

      Of course that is subjective. Also, I have never downloaded music 'illegally' so I'm not one for making any apologies for that behavior. I want to see Fair Use and Copyright law changed, but in the meantime I respect the current legal framework. I've been *very* vocal with my local Congresscritter on this subject among others.

    3. Re:In other words... by McGuirk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try to keep in mind, veganboyjosh, it's not quite like people stealing pizzas from you. Rather, 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.

      I'm not making a point to side either way at this point, just to point out this inconsistency.

    4. Re:In other words... by Vendetta · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't like 99 per cent of the food at McDonalds. Does that mean that I get to waltz in and steal an Egg McMuffin because that's what I like and not everything on their menu is an Egg McMuffin, so to punish them I steal and they get NO money, not even for the stuff I do like?

      I don't like the Recording Industries' lawsuits or DRM or behavior in general but it's people like you, who openly admit that they are "stealing", that make everyone on this side of the fence look bad.

    5. Re:In other words... by twistedsymphony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      Of course they think everyone is stealing music. When you try to understand the mindset of someone else the first thing you do is look at yourself. RIAA execs think that people are stealing music because they're cheap bastards and it's free, because they know that would be their own motivation if they were in the consumer's shoes.

      Did you ever notice that the people who are paranoid that they'll get screwed over are often the same people who screw over others every chance they get?
      --
      Collector's Edition
    6. Re:In other words... by Reapman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't agree with the GP, stealing is bad however you justify it, but your anaology is weak... if you walked into a McDonalds, bought an Egg McMuffan, and had to pay $20 for it plus get 6 additional cheeseburgers for it THEN your anaology might hold.

      Now that they're coming out with DRM-free music at a pretty good bit rate, I'm all for it. I don't want to buy music that will die because some company decided to cancel their DRM system (see Microsoft)

    7. Re:In other words... by SlickNic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm so tired of hearing this crap argument, first a physical product takes physical goods AND labor to reproduce. Music takes a negligible amount of labor to reproduce in digital formats. A CD, Cassette, 8track, ect... are all physical goods and you must pay to create them in addition to paying the artist/label. Digitally reproduced media should be priced accordingly, the music industry is just pricing it the same even though they have less costs to distribute the digital product. Some may not agree with me on this last part but I do think that if a song was $0.10 or $0.25 they would sell many many more songs and it would no longer be worth wile to download illegally when you could just buy the song correctly tagged in the formate/quality you want and be DRM free. The labels could save at least hundreds of thousands of dollars downsizing their legal department and getting rid of any CD stamping plants/contracts they may have. Music "collections" could also be sold, say $50.00 for every Beatles song ever written, bam one download and you have em all in your format/quality of choice. I really do think allofmp3.com has/had the right idea, they just need some more solid licensing.

      --
      Saying "all faiths are equivalent" is akin to saying "all drugs are the same".
    8. Re:In other words... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't say people downloaded because it was crap. I said fewer people are buying entire CD's when 90% of said CD is crap and maybe has one or two good songs.

      When was this not true? I recall the 80s fondly, but man that decade spawned some seriously shitty music. Really bad soft rock, appalling synthesized junk, hair metal. Yech. But people bought it because they liked it well enough. Need to come up with a better reason than quality for why people aren't buying.

      From what I can tell, there's a couple reasons: 1) people can buy tracks now. That's a fully legal reason why the record companies lose money. 2) There hasn't been a change in the dominant format now for what, 15 years? It's been a while since people bought their music twice. That made the record companies a lot of money. And 3)...piracy. It's really hard to argue that there's not a significant number of people who aren't buying music that they otherwise would have bought because it's now free. Sure, it's easy to rationalize - costs too much, crappy, whatever. But the end result is, if it's that bad then don't listen to it.

      Of course that is subjective. Also, I have never downloaded music 'illegally' so I'm not one for making any apologies for that behavior. I want to see Fair Use and Copyright law changed, but in the meantime I respect the current legal framework. I've been *very* vocal with my local Congresscritter on this subject among others.

      That, in my eyes, gives you a great amount of credibility. I think too many people use banners like copyright, and so on to justify illegal behavior. Calling the Congressrats is a great way to do it.

      I do think there is room for civil disobediance here - go download music that *would* have passed into public domain before the Bono act was passed. But downloading new music while claiming evils of copyright - which many people are doing - doesn't work.

    9. Re:In other words... by lbgator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a bad analogy. Stealing a tangible good and stealing an arrangement of electrons are two different things. How about:

      You like McMuffins, but McDonalds only sells them in 12 packs and they won't let you split the cost among friends. Anyone who is caught splitting the cost of a McTwelvePack will be prosecuted. "This is ridiculous" you squeal, "MickeyDees can't tell me how to enjoy my McMackins!" You and your friends decide that buying one McTwelvePack each is ridiculous and is not going to happen - so you either resolve to not buy McMuffins at all or you set up an illegal breakfast sharing ring which will fleece McDonalds out of many potential dollars.

      I know this seems like a truly outlandish analogy, but is it really? The GP says he enjoys a product and is willing to pay money for the product, but it is mostly sold in a format that he can't tolerate. Hence, he is left with the option to not buy the product or steal it. I am no psychologist, but it seems like human nature to me.

    10. Re:In other words... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, it would be unrealistic to argue that every, single unauthorized copy is a "lost sale," but arguing the opposite is equally silly.

      I object to the use of "lost sale." I would rather see "missed sale." A "loss" is a legal term used for theft. You have to have a loss to have a theft. Copyright can not be theft because there is no loss. Revenue, sales, and all that aren't items. You can't lose them. "Oops, I misplaced my revenue, have you seen it?" "Check under the bed." Nope, doesn't work, you can't lose your revenue. And any salesman will tell you a lost sale is a sale you would like to have gotten that never really existed. Again, not a loss. When someone copys a book, what has the author or bookstore or trade association "lost"? They still have all their copies in storage. They still have the copyright. They still have all the money they had before. There is no loss. Nothing is missing. With nothing they can point to that was touched, then it can't be a loss, and thus can't be a theft.

      Using "lost revenue" or "lost sale" implies that something that never existed was lost, which is impossible. "Missed sale" and "unrealized revenue" are much more applicable, but we all know that the content owners are purposefully misusing words in order to mislead (I call that lying) and won't stop. So I would argue that there is no grey. Either every copy made is a "lost sale" in the sense it is a sale that will not take place (whether it would have anyway being irrelevant) or none of them are a "lost sale" because a sale can never be "lost" in the strict definition of the word. That's why content owners pick such words to use. They can always make the arguement that the other side is irrational because they will use the words to create semantic arguements over "some loss" "no loss" and such, while they continue filing in court that 100% of all copies made are lost sales and no one is calling them on it.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re:In other words... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you personally. There is a huge entertainment glut and I simply bypass entertainment that is too expensive (la femme nikita-- $80/season, X-Files, $75/ season) until it goes on sale ($15/season for both-- a reasonable price).

      However, artists have a right to a living, not a right to enormous wealth. Prices currently charge reflect out-dated models and it will probably take another 20 years for them to become reasonable. J.K. Rowling is an excellent example- no creative work justifies a billion dollar income- it's not a fair outcome to society as a whole. Millions of people are starving to death who would not be if the money were routed their way instead of to book creation. I believe that anything much over a lifetime's income for a single work is absurd and you should fight it anyway you can. So that would be about 40k*80 years or about 3.2 million maximum for a given creative work.

      Copyright is intended to encourage creation of works- not to make creators and their heirs and the corporation they sold the rights to impossibly wealthy forever.

      ---

      No one is forcing you-- but never in history has it been such an artificial restriction. It is literally a choice of "rent at a very high price this broken DRM'd very expensive product from us until we change formats again" or "get a superior unbroken copy you can keep forever for free". It is literally a choice between not getting the product at all (so they get no money) or getting a copy which takes nothing from them (so they also get no money). So it comes across more as sour grapes on their part than reasonable demands.

      They have set the price so high that it is a mockery and the cost of production and illegal acquisition is so low that obeying the law is widely perceived as stupid. Hell, even their own children are copying their products illegally in their own houses.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  2. I call BS. by Tavor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I call BS. by kannibal_klown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a good theory, but it has some flaws. For example, they're still going after universities with good law schools as well as ivy league schools.

      The law schools have a chance to fight back and have the resources to put up a decent struggle. And many students attending law schools have parents with money and/or connections.

      I'm not saying those 2 scenarios invalidate your theory, but something to think about.

    2. Re:I call BS. by penguin_dance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Naaah, it's because that's the age group that's downloading most of what's out there. Most of us old foggies with such an inclination have already either bought and/or downloaded all the music they want. The stuff they have coming out today is crap. If they wanted to sell music, they should have been marketing to baby-boomers with disposable income (and technically, probably less aware of how to find and download the illegal stuff) instead of poor college students!

      Now, get off my lawn!

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    3. Re:I call BS. by misterhypno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the law schools are NOT going to protect the students charged with illegally downloading music - at least not without the student having to pay the law school SOMETHING, not to mention the mandatory court costs, fees, deposition transcriptionist fees, ad nauseam, which many students simply cannot afford.

      Add to that the fact that a court trial, even the prep time, TAKES TIME, which, for a student in a degree program, simply cannot afford to use up, either, as many of their classes happen during business hours as well, when the law school's legal aid offices are open.

      Time lost from study + money lost to legal expenses over possible legal losses from the RIAA running the clock out to nearly forever through the use of continuances and out-of-state venues FOR their cases = a broke student who has flunked out of the degree program they were IN, who is in debt forever to the RIAA as well as to the courts.

      Not a pretty picture.

      The RIAA seems to be banking on this and, to be honest, mailing more threatening letters on their way TO the bank.

      And the above paradigm works whether the student is guilty of illegal downloading or NOT.

      Which sucks for the student and is rapidly becoming what seems to be a second-stream cash-cow for the RIAA... and the recording ARTISTS, whom the RIAA is SUPPOSED to be PROTECTING, never see DIME ONE OF ANY OF THESE MONIES!

      How "fair" is that?

    4. Re:I call BS. by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's part of what pisses me off. I'm 56, long out of college, have a halfway decent job, turn on the radio and what do I hear?

      I hear shit that's targeted to unemployed twelve year olds. And the RIAA complains about losing sales? How is someone with NO MONEY supposed to buy your crap?

      Do they have any fucking idea how many LPs, cassettes, and CDs I've bought in the last 40 years since I got a paying job? And how shitty today's music is to my old-skool rock'n'roll ears? The only mainstream band from this century I like is Buckcherry, and I wonder how they ever got a record contract. All today's shit is Simon Cowell Production-like, minor key wimpy emo shit they call "rock", rap (hint: black people my age hate rap even more than I do), tuneless screaming hardcore, and the like.

      Find another Zeppelin. Find another Hagar. Find another Pink Floyd. Find another Stones. Find another Chuck Berry. Find another Alice in Chains. Because we have money. Twelve year olds don't you damned cocaine-soaked idiots!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  3. Tagged: yeahriht by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  4. "Better technology" by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  5. Better filters == more spam by MacDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:What's interesting ... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope your response to the RIAA is something along the lines of:

    We have received your DMCA notices. None are attributable to IP addresses given out by our DHCP server. One is attributed to a terminal server with no internet access. Thus, we will be taking no action other than to file these notices. Should we receive future notices which may be attributed to an IP address assigned by our DHCP server and thus one of our students, we will pass along the DMCA notice as well as a record of all filed and incorrect DMCA notices we have received so that the student in question can be made fully aware of the accuracy of your efforts should they wish to formulate a legal defense.

    Let the RIAA know that their machinegun approach to this will be used against them when it comes time to prosecute. I doubt they'll slow down but the increasingly large file of haphazard DMCA notices will eventually show that they are filing frivolous lawsuits.

  7. Re:What's interesting ... GET THIS STORY OUT by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This story needs to be spread more widely. The RIAA has claimed that their methods are close to perfect (you'll catch a few dolphins maybe, but not many). Yet when they sue the wrong person because the inaccurate IP address happened to match up with somebody else's account that person either capitulates, or pays thousands in lawyer bills to clear their name only to see the RIAA attempt to walk away without reimbursing them (like you're guilty just for having a broadband account in the first place) for their costs.

    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."