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."

Comments

I call BS.

[Tavor]

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.

Re:I call BS.

[kannibal_klown]

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.

Re:I call BS.

[penguin_dance]

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!

Re:I call BS.

[misterhypno]

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?

Technology that is helping catch more criminals

[hansraj]

Previous technology: Flip a coin. Heads -> you are innocent.

New_and_Improved technology: Throw a die. 1 -> you are innocent.

The future?

[Swizec]

So how long before they target kindergartens? Those little bastards aren't buying any CD's, clearly they're stealing them!

No Mystery

[slagheap]

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.

Re:In other words...

[McGuirk]

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.

Re:Missed one;

[Technician]

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.

Re:In other words...

[Vendetta]

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.

Re:In other words...

[twistedsymphony]

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?

What's interesting ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.)

Re:What's interesting ...

[whisper_jeff]

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.

Re:In other words...

[SlickNic]

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.

Re:In other words...

[lbgator]

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.

Re:In other words...

[AK Marc]

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.