Slashdot Mirror


Colleges Secretly Test Music-Industry Project

An anonymous reader writes "The music industry is still pushing Choruss, a controversial blanket-licensing scheme, but it is far less innovative than first described. Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released because the issue is a political landmine — and who wants to be associated with the recording industry?"

9 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Blanket licensing is never legal by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Canadians have their blank CD tax ostensibly because blank CDs are used to copy music. Great. But is it then legal to copy music in Canada? No. How does that even work?!

    Doing this other blanket licensing stuff will enjoy similar respect in that anything acquired will be decidedly illegal until proven otherwise and even with proof, there is little doubt in my mind the recording industry will respect it as legal.

    1. Re:Blanket licensing is never legal by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Individuals do not have access to government. Government is influenced by money. The corruption is plain and obvious for all to see and neither the government nor those who are influencing government with money are the slightest bit ashamed.

    2. Re:Blanket licensing is never legal by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      essentially you'd be downloading my music for a fraction of the retail cost.

      Since there's no packaging, no physical media, no cover art, not shipping, no retail overshead, it should be a fraction of the retail cost.

  2. Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Won't most of the students get sued the day after graduation, when they are no longer associated with the college and haven't deleted their music collections?

  3. Re:The really interesting part of the article... by user4574 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whether they have some kind of intrusive metering software or not, what I'm wondering is how they think they can pull off paying out per-play royalties to artists from a flat-fee, unlimited-download subscription model. The maths, they don't add up.

  4. Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we had a free market and sane copyright terms I would agree with you. The way I usually end any argument about "artists rights" and the *.A.As is this-

    Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been worm food (or a Popsicle, depending on whom you believe) for going on half a century but one of his FIRST works, one made when airplanes were made out of cloth and antibiotics were still but a dream, is STILL under copyright.

    If we hadn't had the public domain stolen from us thanks to treasonous bribery we all could go to a nice public domain website and download all the music up to the mid 70s for absolutely free. Artists could use that material to create new and exciting works by remixing, sampling, and using snippets in their original compositions. Instead thanks to treasonous bribery in all likelihood your grandchildren, if they are very lucky and live to be VERY old, might actually one day see the music of Jimi Hendrix and the Stones make it into the public domain. That is of course if that damned mouse doesn't cause copyrights to simply be extended forever, again thanks to bribery.

    So while I haven't heard shit from an RIAA artist I would bother even stealing, I say if you like it please steal the fuckers. After all they have stolen from you, me, our children, our families, by robbing our public domain from us to fill their greedy pockets. The copyright system was a CONTRACT nothing more. In return for a LIMITED copyright We, The People, got a richer public domain. But the contract has been broken, and until We, The People, are again allowed a place at the bargaining table all rights granted by that contract should be ignored. Considering they are ignoring our end of the contract, why shouldn't we do the same?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  5. Re:The music industry is retarded by purpledinoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's retarded is that is secret? Why is this secret? Why is the copyright treaty secret? The only conclusion I can come up with is that they're up to no good.

  6. Re:Thank you, RIAA... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released

    The music industry says there are six colleges, but the six won't let their names out? How are they supposed to keep a service used by all their students secret?

    I call bullshit on these lying bastards. Everything the RIAA labels do is based on a lie, starting with the lie that P2P costs sales when every study says "pirates" spend more on music than anybody. Well, P2P does cost RIAA labels sales; if you buy two or three indie CDs, that's money you don't have to buy an RIAA CD.

    And thank you, reverendbeer, for pointing out that these lying bastards DON'T own rights to all music. They don't. We need to call these lying sociopaths out at every opportunity.

  7. Re:The music industry is retarded by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do I want from them?

          a) No suing or prosecuting of non-commercial pirates.
          b) No DRM, No laws forbidding circumvention tools.
          c) Copyright terms that last no more than 30 years.
          d) Don't attempt to shakedown or otherwise control radio in any form (terrestrial, sat or net).

    Don't give me the impression that I am building my own gallows if I give them my money.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.