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."
Maybe it's been said before, but it seems clear that RIAA is not so much enforcement as a revenue source for a desperate group.
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.
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.
Revenue for What desperate group? The record companies? The mid-level managers within those companies?
(shrug)
I steal music. I'm a thief taking other people's labor (they produce; I don't pay their wages). I freely admit that, and the reason I do it is because I don't want to pay $10-15 to buy a CD that contains just one good song. (Nor do I want to pay $1 to get compressed/lossy-sounding AAC files.) So I steal to get what I want.
If the artist is exceptionally good, or releases a greatest hits album that collects 5-6 albums in one space, THEN I will buy the thing because it's worthwhile. I've got a whole bookshelf filled with greatest hits albums.
Maybe RIAA should focus more on providing WHAT I WANT,
rather than beating me over the head with lawsuits.
i.e. RIAA should try better customer service.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
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 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.)
I purchase music two ways. One is from independent artists. In which case, the artist gets 100% of the proceeds.
The other, is at the Good Will or other used store. Where I "stick it to the man". No money goes to the record companies.
vi +
The proper defense against these types of tactics is for the students to become certified as class of wrongfully prosecuted and legally harassed college students. Then it doesn't matter that the students are individually weak or that they won't individually see a lot of money in damages, because the potential losses for the RIAA and their members if they should lose could be very terrible indeed. Class actions are the nuclear weapons of the legal profession and they force even the largest corporations and conglomerates to take notice.
I'm not saying that a new CD should cost $20, but to say that since the cost to produce is negligable that the cost to the consumer should be similarly low is not valid. One dollar per Non-DRM song seems pretty reasonable to me, although I think that the money should go to the artists and mixers, not record company execs.