Slashdot Log In
New RIAA File-swapping Suits Target Students
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Oct 30, 2004 08:25 AM
from the share-and-share-alike dept.
from the share-and-share-alike dept.
Fletcher writes "The Recording Industry Association of America filed another round of lawsuits against alleged file-swappers, including students on 13 university campuses.
The 750 suits come just a few days after Internet researchers released a study that found peer-to-peer traffic had remained constant or risen up to the early days of 2004, despite the pressure of recording industry lawsuits."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bishoujo games (Score:3, Funny)
Not news any more. (Score:4, Insightful)
99% of the whole point of these lawsuits is to get filesharing fearmongering into the news where it can "deter" and influence politicians.
Personally, I don't feel like it's newsworthy any more, and I don't see any reason to actively help RIAA in their fear-spreading mission.
RIAA & unauthorized filesharing are *both guil (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, now that you've commented on it, you're complicit in that too... ;)
Yes, it is absolutely correct that the point of the lawsuits is to get publicity for this issue. And it is correct that Slashdot is participating in that process.
However it is also worth differentiating between "filesharing" and "unauthorized filesharing."
These suits (as opposed to the Napster, Grokster, etc.) are about unauthorized filesharing, and not the technology itself.
Indeed, those that constantly act as apologists for unauthorized filesharing are just as guilty as *IAA for endangering an emerging technology.
Parent
Who's being sued? (Score:3, Insightful)
this is an important question because one could say that the universities allowed them to swap files by not-not-allowing (:p) and so the students could use this in there defense (however crooked and twisted a defense it is...).
Re:Who's being sued? (Score:2, Insightful)
> or the campus/university
As the RIAA are scumsucking filth, they'll attack those with the most to lose from a loss to their "alleged" lawsuit, and coerce thousands in settlement from them.
RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:4, Interesting)
For one, you can't stop it by going after people that don't have enough money to pay for cds. CDs printing costs are in like the cents (30-70 cents) to make the CD ready for packaging.
They charged 15 dollars for most. Only give the artist maybe 70cents-1 dollar for each record sold. If they ultimately actually lowered the price to a more convient number maybe people will by them.
Or even maybe have them actually good music to purchase. Going after college students who have enough to worry about is a horrible way to get support. Its a negative campaign that'll end up hurting them.
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:4, Informative)
Its more like 6 cents if they're lucky, minus "expenses" that the RIAA charges them, like 25% for packaging. And thats not even considering how the recording industry cooks their books to screw people out of the rest. Artists barely see a dime from cd sales, their money is made from concerts.
Parent
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:3, Informative)
WOW! I never thought of that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok...let's take an average hollywood movie that cost today around 50 million give or take to produce. Some cost upwards to 100 million. And that's just from producing the movie itself, not including the marketing for it. Yet the DVD, where they make a ton of cash from, costs only 20 bucks when it hits the stores. 20 bucks.
The RIAA claim that the CD's cost so much because they spend so much on the artists, the promotion, the artwork etc etc so the price point is 17 bucks for a CD with 72 minute of music. Now I KNOW a music CD doesn't cost 50 million dollars to produce and market. No way NEAR that amount.
This is just blatent money-grubbing bastardship in it's prime. I how can they possibly defend themselves with this?
Parent
Re:WOW! I never thought of that... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:WOW! I never thought of that... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mentioned $17 for a CD... the average price of a new CD is now down to $13.29 [npd.com]. That's a historic low, particularly when you take inflation into account. Some CDs will cost more (those pressed in smaller amounts, those that cost more to produce) but if you're still paying $17 for a typical new release, you're shopping at the wrong store.
You're correct that a CD doesn't cost anywhere near $50MM. The typical cost of sale for a CD is about six or seven bucks. This includes accruing for marketing, but
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:3, Interesting)
"I love how DVDs' prices are decreasing and will one day be lower than audio CDs' prices. How is it possible for such an old technology to be so expensive? (I know the answer but I'd really like their point of view...)"
The average price of a CD is down to $13.29 [npd.com]. That's a historic low, and the price drop is accelerating. DVDs are typically priced at $19 or $20, so DVD prices have a long way to go before they meet CD prices.
The "old technology" involved in a CD -- the pressing -- is one of the less s
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah really, if nothing else it's raising a whole new generation to hate and loathe the RIAA. I know when I was a kid I'd never even heard of the RIAA except, maybe, when Al Gore's wife (you know, Tipper) was trying to get music censored-- then I seem to recall the RIAA actually being out against that (hence the "explicit lyrics" labels). But todays young adults? I don't see them having any love for the RIAA.
So.. way to go guys, keep it up! Anothe
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:3, Informative)
You're missing the point. The value (and thus the cost it can be sold at) of a CD is not in manufacturing it - would you pay 30-70 cents for a manufactured and packaged blank CD? The value comes from the content, that is the music from the artists' time, creative efforts, innovation, etc. So when you are paying $15 for a CD (or whatever) that was manufactured for 30-70cents (or 6cent
Value (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I need to thank the RIAA, and---of course---ClearChannel. By promoting only mainstream music (Mindless "Pop-40," Mainstream "Alternative," thug-only "Rap," catch-all "Jazz," Balding "Rock," and baroque-only "Classical") I pretty much only listen to indie bands these days. I only listen to
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yes, to say that rock stars don't deserve money for their work. They don't. Most of what the 'produce' is just stolen from lesser-known albums of many years ago. Plus most rock stars are assholes. And far, far overpaid. (Seen Rod Stewart's huge mansion in last month's Architectural Digest?)
For one, you can't stop it by going after people that don't have enough money to pay for cds.... If they ultimately actually lowered the price
Correction ... Again... Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't mind repeating this like a broken record. Eventually everybody will get it. Musicians usually get paid NOTHING for CD sales. Yes, by contract they get a small percentage, but that same contract also lets the record company first deduct all expenses of manufacturing, advertising, distribution, etc, etc, which usually leaves a ZERO net payment. For a more detailed explanation of how this works, read this article by Janis Ian [janisian.com], who has recorded more than 25 albums over nearly 40 years, and has yet to see a record company check with a plus sign on it.
The short version is: Musicians make money primarily from live performances, same as they did for centuries before recording technology was invented. What CD sales do for them is give them exposure, which generates audiences for concerts. They get the same exposure whether you buy a CD, download it, listen to it on the radio or find it lying on the sidewalk. Paying for the CD does not help the musician.
Record companies, on the other hand, make nearly ALL their money from CD sales. They justify all their business practices because they lose money on the songs that don't sell well enough to cover expenses. Essentially record companies are venture capitalists who seize all profits from a company until the startup expenses are covered, and then continue to get most of the profits after that.
Would you finance your startup like that? I didn't think so.
Parent
Re:RIAA again going for the little guy (Score:3, Insightful)
*Ahem* (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevermind that copyright was a priviledge granted on the condition that it should eventually, after a limited time benifit society and culture by release into the public domain. With the new de-facto perputual copyright, the grounds on which the priviledge was granted is gone. So is my respect for copyright.
If you have any difficulty comprehending this simple connection, well I'll bother you again some time later.
Re:RIAA again going for the little [crimminal] (Score:3, Insightful)
P2P via anonymous proxies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:P2P via anonymous proxies (Score:4, Interesting)
Server A sends random encrypted bytes from the material requested and Server B fills in the blanks. Sent non-sequentially or out of play order and they'll have a tough time figuring out what the hell is being downloaded.
Parent
These are college students, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, they probably have some original CDs you might want to rip tracks from. Not to mention the library, which probably has thousands of CDs available (my public library sure does). Ya, I know it's illegal, but chances are, no one else is using that CD's track at the moment.
I mean, sure, centralized P2P is convenient, but a lawsuit is pretty inconvenient. G
It's Just (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's Just (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I see nothing wrong with sharing information (I think it is wrong to claim to be the author of the information if you're not - i.e. plagiarise), but copyright is just government-supported censorship.
Re:It's Just (Score:3, Funny)
Go RIAA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Go RIAA! Way to sue some people who are unlikely to be able to defend themselves. You truly have a gigantic collective business mind.
[/sarcasm]
Seriously, when will this business model of suing some of your most interested customers cease? When the weather report in Hell changes?
Re:Go RIAA... (Score:5, Funny)
Simple, last week it was a chilly 0 degrees Celsius.
Apparently a team named the Boston Red Sox were able to win some big game or something. Cats and Dogs were seen living together for the night.
Parent
So the RIAA targets those.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is kind of like the schoolyard bully shaking down the smaller kids for their lunch money. Why does the RIAA exist these days, anyway? I haven't heard a single thing about what they've done other than file lawsuits....
Time To Strong-Arm Colleges and Universities (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, well, at least it's a good education in the way the outside world "works".
Re:Time To Strong-Arm Colleges and Universities (Score:2)
All your child are belong to us ! (Score:5, Interesting)
And I will not till they stop this BS. Remember all these losers back in the 60's and 70's I'm sure they copied there buddies music if they liked it.
It's the same shit.
The way to stop this crap is boycott music period. Listen to the radio if you must. A one year boycott and they will crumble like a cracker in a vise.
What's the difference if you get it off the net or get it off FM? I'm sure if they like the music they'll go and buy it to support the band so they can make more for them to enjoy.
Current IP List? (Score:4, Interesting)
Branding (Score:5, Insightful)
What the RIAA is doing here is cementing P2P as the way to get music. They think they're creating negative associations with P2P, but what they're really doing is creatin negative associations with the RIAA. It's basic psychology. We hate being told what we can't do by large oppressive corporations, and it only makes us want it more.
"There is no such thing as bad publicity." But what they don't realize is that this is publicity for P2P, not publicity for the RIAA.
University students today, CEOs tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)
The university students today will be in the work force in the next few years, and then the main force of the work world not long after, as the baby boomers are getting all to be seniors.
So good work. Keep pissing us off. Keep targeting us. Your end will be tragic, except you can go fuck yourselves because nobody will care.
How does BitTorrent fit into all of this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Will the RIAA change the number of songs shared before legal action is taken or will BitTorrent users get a free ride?
Re:How does BitTorrent fit into all of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
since BitTorrent isn't a huge central network it's quite likely IMO that Torrent users are mostly safe.
It's much easier to track copyright violations on networks like Kazaa than monitoring some websites and the irc for torrents.
But even if the RIAA manages to monitor the entire net some day they'll still have to deal with offline trading. It's so convenient today to copy some friends Mus
P2P Usage Truths (Score:3, Insightful)
P2P is agnostic.. its a concept, not a action... a more accurate study would be the USE of the P2P networks they are 'surveying'.
Just spreading more half truths and misconceptions...
I know personally my P2P usage has gone WAY up in 2004, I now get most of my BSD ( and related ) ISO's via torrents now.. Last I heard that's legal traffic.
And so we go and install I2P (Score:4, Interesting)
Get your copy here [i2p.net]. It's an onion-routing network, and open mix-net if you like. It protects your anonimity by using a number of proxies to channel the data, and encrypting the data such that one always knows only the next hop to send it to.
In contrast to, e.g., Ants or MUTE, finding your data scales as log(N) (N: number of nodes in the net), whereas Ants and MUTE scale as N^2. And in contrast to Freenet and friends, this actually works.
Now, you can already just put all your music files in the eepsite/docroot folder of your install, and post your key on forum.i2p. That's enough for anonymous sharing.
Even better: A BitTorrent system that works completely within I2P is in the works ;)
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
They targetted the companies/people producing the apps, and there was outcry here - "The tool has legitimate uses! Go after the users who misuse it!".
Now, they're targetting the users who misuse it - and yet still there is outcry here. How is this a YRO issue? You have no right to distribute copyrighted works without the copyright holder's permission. That's partly why the GPL exists, to grant you those rights.
Don't like it? Work to change it. But don't admonish the RIAA for upholding their rights, while cheering on others when they go after GPL violators.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two ways to change a law: either buy the people who make the laws, or break the laws until they're impossible to enforce. The former is not an option, since the RIAA and MPAA have far more money than the average college student, so mass civil disobedience is the only other option.
If Americans had listened to people like you in the 30s, they would still be unable to legally drink beer: Prohibition wasn't ended because the law-makers had a change of heart, but bec
Why get music from the RIAA? (Score:3, Informative)
There's dmusic.com [dmusic.com], Musician MP3 [musicianmp3.com], Sound Click [soundclick.com], Vitaminic [vitaminic.com], CNet Music [download.com], and even modarchive.com [modarchive.com], Just to name a few. There's a bunch of other sites to get music from independant artists so there is no need to even use P2P to share RIAA music let alone purchase it.
This would be the proper way to protest the RIAA. If everyone did this, they would see their profits fall and at the same time, see that file swapping is way down, then they would have no choice but to confirm that they're really the ones to blame for the decreased sales. The biggest challenge is trying to get people that love the "Cookie Cutter Boy/Girl Bands" to switch over.
RIAA's own logic doesn't hold up. (Score:3, Insightful)
They used to simply use the catch-22 situation, where if file sharing went up and sales went down after they filed lawsuits they simply said to themselves, "This proves we need to file more lawsuits! What we're doing just isn't enough!" and if file sharing went down (according to now discredited figures, since people were just moving off of Kazaa) and sales went down, they'd say "It works! Now let's keep up the good fight to improve those sales!"
Well, this last period, file sharing has gone up and sales have also gone up. There just isn't any way to justify lawsuits using this information, according to the RIAA's own spurious justifications.
Except to say, that is, that knowing the impending backlash was coming, the RIAA probably steeled themselves against any public pressure--and along with it rationality-- before they began to file lawsuits. Looking at Cary Sherman's statements, for instance, its hard not to notice he never actually addresses the efficacy or goals of the lawsuits. He just parrots "We are within our rights. We can't stand by while thieves are stealing our music. Artists need to be paid," and similar argumentively disconnected soundbites.
Well, news flash, RIAA--copyright is pragmatic. You enforce it to increase sales, not for moral (that is, constitutionally unfounded) rationales. You may have the right but how about a reason? How exactly can you justify enforcing it to a cane-flogging-for-jaywalking extremity, infuriating your customers, while when it is rising your sales are also rising?
In the good old days ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just Say No To RIAA-affiliated Music(R) (Score:3, Informative)
Ogg Stream [ardynet.com]
Basic economic principle (Score:3, Insightful)
P2P is not really the reason, however.
When I was in school in the early '90s, very few people had TVs in dorm rooms, and of those only a very small handful had VCRs. Also, I'd guess that by the time I graduated in '96, only about 25 percent of dorm rooms had computers. I never saw a single game console at university until the end of my junior year.
What this means is that the students had a fixed entertainment budget, and when they couldn't get beer, about all they could buy was CDs, or film/concert tickets (or less-than-licit substances).
Back then I copied music like crazy from CDs to tape, but I also bought loads of CDs.
Now, however, pretty much every room has a computer, and pretty much every computer has a DVD player. I don't know the prevalence of consoles, but I reckon PS2s and X-boxen are pretty common.
Eight to ten years ago CDs had the students' entertainment budget line pretty much all to themselves. Now CDs have to compete with DVD and game sales and rentals.
It's not about file sharing, but about more products chasing the same dollar.
The drop in CD sales has less to do with sharing, which I don't think is any more common now than it ever was, and more to do with the fact that the consumer's percieved value of a CD has dropped thanks to competition from other media.
The only possible answer for people trying to sell CDs is to lower the price.
My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine the system wouldn't be a terribly hard coding problem, there is already some online store software about. As for offering it as a service, it wouldn't be too hard to cover up for the bandwidth/hosting costs and still allow musical artists to keep much of the profit themselves.
Kind of like how MovableType did things; made a blog application, gave it away for free, and offered to set it up/host it for you for a fee.
With new developments such as FLAC, it wouldn't be hard to distribute replicas of albums online, without the middle man.
It seems to me that this whole music piracy issue stems from the financial inconvenience of legally getting music, and the group attacking us because of it is the one responsible for the problem.
Let's cut him out.
Re:Okay, a few things... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone claiming they can prove that they have? If so I would love to hear from them. The truth is that the RIAA are actually on shaky legal ground when it comes to traditional standards of evidence and proof. It's just lucky for them that they don't need any. To be accused is to be guilty when it comes to file sharing of copyrighted works.