Slashdot Mirror
Collegiate Resistance To RIAA In Michigan
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "There are now at least three complaints being investigated in Michigan against the RIAA's unlicensed investigator, SafeNet a/k/a MediaSentry, one of which was filed by Central Michigan University itself. Two other complaints have been filed by students, one from Northern Michigan University and one from University of Michigan. This appears to be part of the growing sense of exasperation colleges and universities are feeling over the RIAA's harassment."
Took them long enough to become exasperated. With the notable exception of Oregon - and even there it took more than one suit to get the State A.G. involved - all of these colleges/universities/bastions of free and open thinking and individual rights have been very slow to fight back against these spurious lawsuits. Too much of a "Not the University's problem" type of thinking on display here.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Or as a non-sarcastic post:
FUCK the middle men who gain most and give little for all the artists hard work, FUCK their rights after creating a monopoly where only they can make big bucks with a large audience. Any kind of industry representative group protecting their copyrights while screwing the artists rights is obviously "harassment".
It's so funny seeing large corporations trying to prevent people from ripping them off. Screw you, loosers! (I don't know what to say about this sentance..). Stop "harassing" me for taking objection to your treatment of the very people who make you profitable.
(I have no expectations of how this post will be modded).
Screw you, loosers! (I don't know what to say about this sentance..)
Neither do I!
Heh, dicketry aside, I agree entirely. The buggy whip makers face hard times ahead. The sad thing is they could use this transition as an opportunity to make themselves the absolute gods of promotion and marketing, possibly leading out of only media related advertising. Had they began at least researching how to change their business models so that the original value of prospecting new artists and finding true talent was their focus, i think they would find themselves in much calmer waters.
Hell they could have even done both, in an asshat kind of way. Begin shaping their focus on promotion and marketing while still putting out the lawsuits but then backed down earlier when it was becoming obvious to judges that shinnanegans were afoot saying "oh we thought this was good evidence!".
Hell for all i know, maybe this is exactly what they're doing. Pumping the populace for capital to fund the shift in their focus. It would be interesting to see what happens when the RIAA dissolves. I'll be watching for the big 4 suddenly trying to be the good guys again, with their new awareness campaigns funded by the legal fun of now.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Even middle men provide a service - if bands don't want access to a large, well-advertised and well-capitalized market base then they don't have to sign with one of those "middlemen."
Record labels and all those other middlemen are advertisers that pay you. The real money is in concerts.
Now, if you expect to be making between 99% and 101% on every CD sold, go indie. Nobody's forcing anyone to sign on to a major label-slash-middleman.
Now, to continue a theme in this thread, "FUCK" everyone who uses "I really love the artists and hate oppression" as an excuse for pirating music. If you really want to support the artist, buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Nonsense.
Everyone hates those eeevil corporations that employ eeevil 10's of thousands of workers so they can take money home and put food on their table for their eeevil families.
It be better for all of us if they were unemployed and living off the state. And by us I mean shoplifters.
--
The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
. If you really want to support the artist, DON'T buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
Fixed that for you. Revenue from distribution is nil for most artists, if you really want to support them buy merchandise from the whichever-band-it-is's website or attend performances. The promotion angle of the current recording industry has collapsed into itself for the big four, being built around creating the images the advertisers think will sell rather than promotion of talent and advertising the talent. If they truely did shift to a promotion and marketing based business model, they wouldn't be focusing the larger part of their attentions on controlling the distribution channels.
When you control distribution of content and venues, you can tailor a low overhead product to the market rather than finding talent and promoting it. If the ones not being promoted aren't being spun on radio, used in movies/supporting media, or otherwise brought to the publics attention what VALUE have they really given? Having your name on the side of a jewel case crammed in the indie section of your local store doesn't count as advertising or promotion in my book.
As for performances, I can't seem to find any information showing that the recording industry puts effort into providing advertising or promotion for anything but the resulting live albums. I could be wrong though on that one as I'm scrounging between tasks heh.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Whatever, dude. Just because people 'choose' some service/product/ideology/whatever/the RIAA/ that sucks, their 'freedom of choice' doesn't invalidate the suckage.
yesterday there was an article of the EFF website commenting that other colleges (Virginia Tech mentioned) were trying to deflect RIAA harassment.
Formal complaints are much better, but the article did bring up a good point; maybe things would be easier for the campuses that didn't log student's network behaviour, or made logs such that certain behaviours weren't linked to any particular student. Would this be reasonable?
What's the value of information that you don't know?
Drug cartels feed thousands, if not millions, of people around the world. Just because an industry pays doesn't mean there is no better alternative for livelihood. Anyone working for ..AA has no sympathy from me.
You bring up an interesting point... One thing I've never understood here..
Copyright was extended over there to life + 70 years right? Why?
Why do music artists (and others why benefit from this) have it so good?
Why should their kids (that is who the extension is supposed to be for isn't it??) not have to work like everyone elses?
Are the children of 'copyright creators' incapable of working?
Does anyone have a real answer that doesn't make their children sound like lazy wastes of space?
Or just drop the requirement to register the MAC address to a username.
Then all you could give the RIAA would be the MAC address that IP was assigned to at that time, if a judge requires them to keep logs.
And since a MAC address is easily spoofable, there goes any ability to tie the IP to a computer, much less a person.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
It's almost embarrassing.
Why almost?
I suggest you do a little reading about NYCL here before you try to bash him. He's contributed a whole hell of a lot more than you (or I) ever will.
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
Mod parent up +1 Insightful, please.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Copyright was extended over there to life + 70 years right? Why? Why do music artists (and others why benefit from this) have it so good?
I think you're making a mistake. About the time copyright was extended is about the same time the RIAA formed an illegal cartel controlling music distribution. They used this cartel to force artists to give up their copyrights to the labels or be locked out of mainstream distribution.
Artists that benefit greatly from extended copyrights are a rare exception. For the most part it is the record labels benefiting, while the artists make little or nothing. Too many people look at the the 1% of superstars (who have the leverage to actually negotiate better deals later in their careers) and assume they are representative of musicians. In truth, the median musician working for the RIAA works hard to make music and has to sign over their rights to the label and ends up in debt to the label to boot. Five years ago most RIAA musicians were surviving mostly on t-shirt and memorabilia sales, but the labels have started requiring bigger and bigger cuts of those revenues as well.
The sad thing is, most musicians want to be famous and want their music to be heard and they are willing to sign ludicrous deals and go into serious debt just for a slight chance at that. The alternatives are not very glamorous, keep their day job and play a few gigs on the side, give it up altogether, or go the indy route and know even if they have ten times the talent, they'll probably never have any real chance to make it big like the bands promoted by the big labels.
If you really want to support the artist, DON'T buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
Fixed that for you.
Download the track/s then send the band a check for their good looks, straight teeth, whatever, anything that will shield them from a possible claim down the line from disbursing a cut to the record companies.
I look for a band run site, not record co. operated, and an address to mail a check:
Yo, Slash, Edge, Duke here's that money I borrowed for that round of coffee when we were kids.Oh, BTW, nice band.
I say fuck the RIAA seriously. The artists make a small % off their music while most of it goes to the lablels... and the lables do what exactly?
Promote? I thought MTV, Channel V (Aust) and stuff like the internet do that well enough.
Distribute? In today's day and age Apple does that.
Write songs for the artists? If you cant write songs you are a meerly a preformer, you have no right to call yourself an artist.
Book venues and organize concerts? Umm no thats why you have a manager. The RIAA's role was about recording.
Providing equipment? Nothing a few instruments and a decent PC cant take care off these days.
So seriously, what do the lables do these days impart from acting like pimps and collect money? They are obsolete.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
If the artist and the record company both agree to the terms of the contract, it's a fair deal. If bands really thought they were getting screwed by the RIAA, they'd stop signing contracts with them.
They're being taken advantage of by the lawyers and watchdog groups/companies that fight their fans in the name of the record label. I'm not saying anyone's mucking around with their contracts or anything; this isn't about any label in particular, but the RIAA as a whole. AFAIK, artists seldom deal with the RIAA directly, the RIAA's interests are that of the many record labels', not the artists.
...and then sign an RIAA contract anyway, they're idiots getting what they deserve. I just can't feel bad for somebody in that situation.
I don't agree with the whole 'it's fair for them to be idiots' thing, because them being idiots makes it unfair for me, unfair to their fans, unfair to anyone that uses p2p filesharing for legitimate purposes, unfair for people that buy a disc expecting that they can do what they want with it, unfair for people that buy some media but then can't play it because they haven't got the right DRM-enabled device. If you can't feel bad for 'idiot' artists, at least feel bad for yourself.
Not that I'm saying artist's that do like the RIAA don't exactly know what they're doing, because I know some do. Some artists (or their managers) can simply engineer albums to contain only one or two decent songs. They will have successful sales just because of those one or two very popular songs wrapped around other tracks that, for all intents and purposes, are disposable music. If the RIAA can stop people from downloading those one or two extremely popular songs, they do benefit.
In reality, the only people screwing the artists are the people pirating music. It's screwing them out of the already tiny fraction of CD sales they agreed in their contract was fair.
Oh, and the bands pretending to dislike the RIAA? They're doing it for the publicity.
No disrespect intended, but I don't think that you really know for sure what you're talking about. There are recording artists that not only speak out against the RIAA, but the implicitly endorse piracy and bootlegging. Official Bootlegs, talk of the DRM-Free Music, File-sharing as advertising. Look up any of these topics. And it's not just for Indie labels either, but mainstream characters such as Avril Lavigne and Mike Portnoy like to use phrases such as "Free music model" and "copyleft philosophy".
Many aspects of these ideas recording artists benefit from whether or not they care about piracy. Pirates don't hurt artists by copying music. Pirates do hurt artists by giving groups like the RIAA the justification for carrying on as they are.
The RIAA's tactics are unethical and their goals are shortsighted. That's why they are hurting the artists of the record labels that they represent.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
I think there is a significant difference. Watermelon and fried chicken are not integral parts of black musical culture, but negative stereotypes about said culture.
Wait, wait, wait. At exactly what point did all stereotypes about a minority become negative?
Seriously, look at what you're saying:
"Likes fried chicken" is now an insult.
"Prefers watermelon" is likewise.
In whose reality does this make sense???
Yes, they're stereotypes, but that doesn't make them NECESSARILY negative.
Wait, wait, wait. At exactly what point did all stereotypes about a minority become negative?
They are not. For example, black men having larger penises is a stereotype, but most would consider it positive. Asian people being good at math is a stereotype and most here would consider that positive, although others consider it negative.
Seriously, look at what you're saying: "Likes fried chicken" is now an insult. "Prefers watermelon" is likewise. In whose reality does this make sense???
In a vacuum, it doesn't make any sense, but that stereotype did not form in a vacuum. It originated with racist caricatures and depictions of blacks, associating them with sloth and mental inferiority. Watermelon originated in Africa, but when the stereotype of all african americans loving it took root in our culture, the association was not with the origin, but with the fact that it was very inexpensive. The same goes with fried chicken. It predated the pressure cooking method. Chicken was cheap meat compared to pork and beef and frying could be done over a fire or stove without the need for an expensive oven. The implication was that blacks were poor... which is still true today statistically, but is considered a negative by pretty much everyone.
Now I'm not african american, but I have discussed this topic with friends who are. It is a sensitive one and one they think of negatively, to the point where one friend would not let her kids eat watermelon in public. Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
So I say again, if you ignore history or don't think that history is relevant any longer, then there is nothing wrong with associating watermelon and fried chicken with black people. I'd like to say America has moved on. The other day, someone posted this image in a discussion thread about the death of comedian Bernie Mac. Looking at that image, do you see why some people would consider such a stereotype to be a negative one?
Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
Check the age of your friend, because unless they are at least sixty years old, this probably isn't their own memory at all.
People can take issue with whatever they wish, and it isn't my place to object. I'm just trying to challenge the willingness to perpetuate negativity that doesn't apply in this modern world.
KFC does not equal poverty today.
IN FACT, I'll take this a step farther. My six year old son has NO IDEA what race even means. I once, in trying to get him to clarify which he was talking about asked him 'the white boy or the black boy?' and he was stumped. Didn't know what it meant.
I take that as a sign that if we wanted it to, the negativity of ALL OF THIS would just die away. I'm not planning on teaching my child any different, so here's hoping...
I would bet most bands don't actually care about the piracy. I would also bet that if the bands that did care were given an explanation of ALL impacts that piracy has on them, they probably wouldn't care either. Actually, I'll take that a step further: many bands might actually like piracy, and encourage it.
Before anybody flips out on me, let's compare this to a Microsoft "view" (probably not official) on piracy: Microsoft indirectly profits from piracy because each copy of it's OS that is installed on a machine is one machine that doesn't have a competing OS on it.
In a pseudo-vaguely-similar fashion, a person that has a pirated copy of a band's song is more exposure for them. The act of pirating the music means that person actually wanted to hear that band's work. Just like Microsoft, the band takes no "hit" from the piracy, as that person wasn't going to buy a CD anyway. The additional benefit is that the pirate is probably going to share that music to others, either through electronic means or by playing it for people that may or may not have ever listened to it. That's EXPOSURE.
Look at Metallica. Even though they have "taken a stand" against piracy in the past, they have also openly admitted that one of the single most important factors to their popularity was to piracy. Let's think about this logically for a minute. If CD sales only provide about 1% of a band's revenue, and the other 99% is from concerts: there is a great possibility that a large percent of the fans pirate their music. So, let's say 10% of the audience pirated their music, and it sells for $10/CD (for simplicity's sake): that means the band "lost" $1 per person from the piracy... but WAIT, they got $9/person for the concert! They gained far more than they lost.
Before I step off my soapbox, I have to say I think all this crap from the RIAA is the moanings and groanings of a company that realizes it can't make money from every single copy of every single song from every single artist that has EVER been under their control. Somebody stood up in a board room one day, gave some outrageous figures about how many pirates there are and how much those pirates are "stealing." The main person took that info, freaked out on others, and soon a whole tirade of stupid people started trying to prosecute over stupid shit that only a few of which even have even a small grasp. Had they embraced sharing as a form of free advertisement or ignored it altogether they'd be a much more powerful influence in the industry today.
$me->soapBox->step_down('now');
Sanity is like a condom: rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
maybe you should stop trying to flame the one guy around here that actually goes out to make a difference. http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/29/2211235 as well as a million other posts about the subject. So why don't you look at more than the guys UID and back off. Because acting like a child makes you a newb no matter what your UID is. http://news.slashdot.org/search.pl?query=newyorkcountrylawyer
Thank you, prelelat. I'm glad you appreciated the Judges' Journal article. It took a lot of time to do, but I figured it was an invitation I just couldn't turn down. I am so psyched that the ABA's judicial publication recognized that the RIAA cases present an important 'access to justice' problem, and that the courts need to do something to level the playing field.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful