Music companies target colleges in illegal downloading crackdown

[Doondoo]

College students who faced lawsuits for illegally sharing large music collections over campus computer networks increasingly risk being unplugged from the Internet or even suspended over lesser complaints by the recording industry.

In a nationwide crackdown, the music industry is sending thousands more copyright complaints to universities this school year than last. In some cases, students are targeted for allegedly sharing a single mp3 file online.

A few schools - Ohio University and Purdue University are at the top of the list - already have received more than 1,000 complaints accusing individual students since last fall. For students who are caught, punishments can vary from e-mail warnings to semester-long suspensions from classes. Ohio University said students caught twice sharing music online would face the same disciplinary sanctions as classmates accused of violence or cheating: suspension, probation or an assignment to write a homework paper on the subject. Ohio said no student ever has been caught twice.

The trade group for the largest music labels, the Recording Industry Association of America, identified at the request of The Associated Press the 25 universities to which it has sent the most copyright complaints so far this school year. The group, which has long pressured schools to act more aggressively, said software tools are improving to trace illegal file-sharing on campuses.

"We are taking advantage of that technology to make universities aware of the problem on their campuses," RIAA President Cary Sherman said. "They need to be sending a message to their students about how to live a lawful life."



http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/16748772.htm

[Systematic Chaos]

1. The sooner these universities tell the RIAA where to stick it the better.

If I were considering college right now, whether or not I shared files, I would do my best to stay clear of the ones which were taking this BS to extremes. What if your dorm-mate invited a friend over, who used your computer while you were gone then transferred the files to a USB memory stick? Fuck that.

[Joanne98]

2. Starfish organizations. E-mule can't be sued.. BECAUSE...

E-mule is not owned by anyone. The record labels have to understand that if you put your customers in JAIL. They can't buy your products...

Corporate music SUCKS!

[boobooday]

3. We love you, goodnight!

There's a great way to build your fan base. Prosecute them for listening to your music.

[Beaverhausen]

4. Listening to? or stealing?

[boobooday]

5. I guess there are two points of view on that

On one hand, you could consider it stealing. On the other hand, cultural products obtain value from being abundant, not scarce.

I am married to a record producer, so I understand. But I really have no sympathy for the record companies, who are greedy users of talented people. Not to mention the total corruption of the music/radio industry.

In my opinion, they are getting what they deserve.

[Beaverhausen]

8. Well, it isn't really the record companies who suffer - it's the artists

I'm a singer/songwriter.

Yes, there are a few artists on major labels who make a profit, some make millions.The vast majority are hoping to get enough sales to be able to keep going. If their music is constantly traded instead of purchased, they lose that chance.

[boobooday]

18. It's not a black and white situation

But the major labels are a waste of time. If they even bother to hire real musicians anymore, they have them come in and do 12 bars and then cut and paste. The major labels are a joke.

Artists who didn't have a major label deal (and there are fewer and fewer of these deals) had no way to distribute their music before, and now we have many clients who record their own CDs with us, and if they tour their asses off, they can do much better, percentage-wise, selling their own stuff. And, they can sell it for an affordable price, and if they move enough CDs, they can get the attention of the labels.

There are also artists who screw people who help them too. This isn't a black and white situation. And the consumer has been victimized over and over again by record labels, whose production and duplication costs are minimal, but still they want eighteen bucks for a CD.

The future is elsewhere. The old model is over. It is painful, I know, because I've been with my old-school analog man for a long time, and he hates digital, but has reluctantly adopted it. Our session player friends are exploring new ways to release their music themselves.

But blaming the audience just isn't going to work. Prosecuting college students isn't going to help any artists.

[walldude]

26. Good post,

"Prosecuting college students isn't going to help any artists" Exactly. Imprisoning your audience is a really bad business decision. Record labels, and movie companies as well, are trying to put the screws to their most loyal fans and customers. They over inflate their "loss estimates" assuming that every single download was a loss in sales. Not true. I'd say at least 60% of downloads were people who wouldn't have bought the CD or gone to see the movie anyway. If they really want to stop downloaders maybe they ought to give us a reason to buy their shit. The latest Toll CD is a perfect example. I bought the damn thing just to have the cover art. I can't tell you how many crappy albums I bought just to have the cover art, of course in those days album covers were big enough to count as "art".

[walldude]

24. You are the one type of person that falls through the cracks

in this fight with the music industry. The writer. Not sure how to solve the money problem for writers that don't perform. Eventually, like I said in my post below you will be able to distribute your own material, and collect more of the profits than you do from a label. However until a decent system is in place for independent labels, you guys are the ones who are going to get screwed over this downloading war.

[wuushew]

37. And as such you can't make in impartial argument

You are simply arguing for your job security, but tell me if a dollar is not spent on music does that dollar not generate economic activity elsewhere in society?

A student who can spend nothing on a song is free to spend the money on other goods and services that cannot be had for free. If I was to buy a book or some candy bars would I not be employing people who are associated with those goods?

Is your utility for employement superior to theirs? If citizen X can have free music and also enjoy other goods which he can not afford has not his overall utility and recreation increased?



What is the ideal size of industry and to what degree should that industry be protected?

[kid a]

7. bravo beaverhausen!

our group just produced a 16 song record over that last nine months in LA.
Bill: $138,000.00

Who got paid out of that??

Two working session guitarists
Four studio assistants
One sound engineer
One string composer
Two drummers
13 piece string group
One bassist
restaurants for catering
Two mixers
mastering session by two master engineers...

We employ hundreds of people when we make music for recording.


Please pay your damn 99 cents!

Thanks You

[Beaverhausen]

9. exactly. Why people think music should be free is beyond my comprehension

They see a few wealthy artists and think everyone in the industry is a millionaire.

This attitude- including right here on this thread - absolutely disgusts me.

FUCK THE STUDENTS WHO ARE STEALING MUSIC. I HOPE THEY GET CAUGHT AND PAY!

[Ignacio Upton]

11. Complain about the RIAA not giving the artists enough in royalties

And ask groups like TLC or artists like Toni Braxton why they had to file for bankrupcty? Once you sign with an RIAA label, THEY own your creative content. Also, there is itunes, but the RIAA needs to get rid of the shitty DRM "protection" before itunes can gain an even wider base. There is also the prospect of a compulsory licensing scheme, which was proposed by the folks behind the original Napster, and by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a group that is seeking to preserve a free and open internet.

...Also, I should mention that Hollywood has a consistent record of being anti-progress. They sued Sony over the use of the Betamax, arguing that consumers shouldn't be allowed to record the programs of their choice. Thankfully, the movie studios lost that case in 1984 before the SCOTUS.

And in 1999, the RIAA sued Diamond Multimedia for putting out the first mp3 player, the Rio. The RIAA tried to shut down commercial mp3 players, arguing that they infringed upon copyright. Thankfully, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals smacked their asses down, or else the ipod would be illegal today.

[randome]

12. Why do you think anyone has a philosophy about this?

Students aren't sitting around and thinking, "Hey, let's steal some music because the recording industry is a fat cat."

Philosophical and ethical reasoning has nothing to do with this.

It's technology and it's human nature to take technology to its limits. Whether it's right or wrong is something, I dare say, most people don't even think about. They just do and people or the RIAA thinking that if they simply WISH ethical decision-making on people, it will become so are simply ignoring Reality.

[Beaverhausen]

13. Because that is exactly the answer my college-aged nephew gave me

I don't believe for a second they don't realize they are stealing something that isn't theirs.

[randome]

14. "Stealing" or "Copying"?

Surely you can admit there's at least an argument to made for either. My point is, right or wrong, nothing the RIAA does is going to change human nature.

And when peer-to-peer sharing is so effortless, few people consider "right" or "wrong". They just do. Nothing is going to change that. Whether it's "bad for artists" or "sticking it to the Corporation", it's not going to change. It's just the way things are.

[Ignacio Upton]

15. I would argue that p2p is sharing, ethicially

Although legally that's a contentious question. What is so different from using p2p to share music from YOUR CD, then from burning a copy of your CD for a friend? Or giving him a few mp3 files to him by putting them on a USB jump drive? Most of my music collection comes from the later two, plus itunes (I haven't bought a retail CD since 2001, and I will never pay an inflated $16-$20 cost again for a CD that costs nickels to make. Plus, I want to get single tracks most of the time instead of whole albums.) I haven't used p2p to get my music since 2004, but not because of the RIAA. The spyware and malware are why I left Kazza and am not going back to p2p. Even if your music is "free" on p2p networks, you still have to worry about paying to fix your computer if one of those files that you download is corrupted.

[randome]

16. Ah, well...

EMule does just fine for me. I can't say I've ever encountered a PC problem using peer-to-peer. Maybe I've just been lucky.

But if it wasn't for P2P -Napster in its heydey, especially- I would never, and I mean NEVER, have learned to love music the way I do now. There is no way in hell I would have spent thousands of dollars 'experimenting' with classical or trance music by buying CDs and hoping for the best.

Yet because of P2P, my universe of appreciation is much -MUCH- improved.

Again, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong.

It's just the way things are.

[Ignacio Upton]

17. I hear what you're saying

I used the original Napster to sample songs in order to decide which CDs I wanted to buy, and would have downloaded more, but dial-up made that time-consuming and un-realistic. Then I got out of dial up and got broadband around early 2001 (after the RIAA forced Napster to close) which made downloading more music realistic. From around 2001-2002 or so, I burned a few CD-R's from music I got on Morpheus (and then Kazza, because Morpheus pulled out of the Fast-Track network.) However, once I started using Kazza I started getting malware and spyware problems. After having to get my hard-drive re-formatted (and thus losing a large chunk of music that I didn't burn to CD-R) I stopped using p2p. After that, I used the itunes or got music from friends. I'm perfectly willing to pay for music, but not on the basis of the old brick and mortar business model. The reason why I used p2p was:

1. I could get ANY song I wanted, even if the individual record store in my town didn't have copies of the CD's I wanted.

2. I didn't have to pay $16-$20 for a CD that only contained three songs that I like.

In short, I liked p2p because it was/is a business model that works with the consumer. The internet is slowly making the old model irrelevant. I've heard people complain about how Tower Records closed down (including hysterical Clenis-like obsessions over blaming p2p as the sole cause when it wasn't) but are they any more relevant than the horse breeders, saddle-makers and carriage-makers who went out of business because the car out-competed the horse and buggy? Why buy a 10-20 CD for nearly $20 when I can download 10,000's of songs onto an mp3 player the size of a deck of cards?

[BlooInBloo]

28. rofl! Emule.

[Occulus]

31. Amusing PC music CD playback fact:

Simply playing back a legitimately purchased CD on one's PC creates unauthorized copies of the music being played by necessity. Think memory and disk caching.

If the RIAA could erase that tune going through your head or make you pay for humming it, you better believe they would try to do so. I haven't bought a CD since 1993. I saw this coming. I refuse to give money to this trade association ever again.

To hell with them. I don't download music CDs, because I abandoned the industry as a lost cause. And do you know something? I don't feel like I've lost much of anything. That only leads me to believe that the lion's share of music produced by RIAA members wasn't really worth paying for in the first place.

Krimea River. I'm unimpressed by their whining.

[SlowDownFast]

27. You're right, Lars...

anyone who steals music from multi-millionaire rock stars and get caught should be locked up and the key thrown away.

Too bad we can't shut down the internet completely, because as long as there is a world wide web, these thieves will continue to fleece us and our billionaire producers.



:sarcasm:

Truth of the matter is, only the stupid/naive fuckers get caught. I'll continue to 'illegally' DL as much music as I (and thousands/millions more) can and spread the art far and wide, and ain't no fucking thing you or anyone else can do about it.

Stop whining like a little Lars Ulrich bitch and accept it.


edit for: spread the art far and wide for FREE.

[Beaverhausen]

41. That's such a lovely attitude

I assume that whatever job you have or will have in the future, you plan to do it for free.

For the record I put out a CD of my own music and spent about $8,000 of my own money. Not a whole lot, but it was a lot to me and put me in debt for years. Why is it Ok for people to lift it FREE off of the internet? I would love an explanation.

[uncle ray]

42. okay, i want to hear your music.

how can i hear what you do without shelling out money first to see if i like it? do you send out free cassettes? do you get radio play? do you have a website where i can download samples?

i support free sharing of music. i also support artists. the few artists i listen to frequently support the sharing of free music. in turn i buy the albums of the stuff i like, which happens to all be from small record labels. i would not have been turned onto these artists if not for easy online acces to sample their music.

[Beaverhausen]

43. check my profile

link to my myspace page with 4 songs.

[kiahzero]

30. Copyright infringement is, by definition, not theft.

Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

[Initech]

6. Fuck the RIAA. Fuck the DMCA.

I keep saying it's worst piece of legislation we've ever passed in the history of this country.

Honestly, if I were running for Congress, my whole campaign would be based around repealing the DMCA.

[Ignacio Upton]

10. Shhhh, that's common sense

And we all know how folks in D.C. and their RIAA butt buddies don't like that! To them, Fair Use is a nuisance to be eliminated. The RIAA has done nothing but commit thuggery against their own customers. They don't pay their artists shit either, for the poster above. Same goes for the MPAA...although I'm surprised they aren't suing people yet who use p2p. Watch out, because combined they are the Music and Film Industry Association of America (MAFIAA for short.)

[boobooday]

19. You're right

It's a cockamamie mess. I'd vote for ya. And while you're at it, repeal the Telecomm act of 1996 too, and the last three revisions to copyright law.

[Ignacio Upton]

20. To be fair, didn't the Copyright Act of 1976 give us fair use as we know it?

Other than that, I agree. Copyright law (and patent law) in this country in FUBAR, brought to you by a bipartisan group is thugs led by the likes of Jack Valenti (D-Douchebag) and the late Sonny Bono (R-Gingrich ally).

[boobooday]

21. Oh yeah, we gotta keep the fair use

or my ass is grass. Keep that one.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[walldude]

22. LMAO.. The recording industry telling people how to live a lawful life?

Gimme a break. The recording industry has become a joke. The only people who bitch about file sharing and downloads are the very few performers selling millions of CD's and the giant corporations that promote and distribute them. There are a few big selling bands that recognize that file sharing is a boon to them, the Offspring come to mind first. They realize that the money is not in record sales for them, the labels get all that. The money for bands is in putting asses in seats on tour. And you are not going to do that if no one hears your music. Musicians with a good record contract get a buck a CD, the rest goes to the label and the retailer. Anyone who has made CD's at home can tell you that it costs less than 50 cents to burn a disk, and get a case and a label for it, and that's not doing it in bulk. Counting studio time it probably costs a record label around a quarter per disk start to finish.
Record labels and the RIAA are scared shitless, they know what's coming. With today's technology a musician can write, record, and distribute their own music over the internet. That's where this is all heading. Record companies will be a thing of the past. And thank god for that. If I have to listen to one more piece of crap, manufactured pop album from Justin, Christine, Britney, Fergie, or any of these other diva's that pass for musicians these days I'm gonna :puke: I can't even listen to studio records anymore. You want to support musicians keep downloading their songs and when they come to your town pay to see them live that's how bands really make money.

[Ignacio Upton]

23. To be fair, smaller artists have had problems with downloading

As Beaverhausen pointed out. However, this is because the RIAA labels pay them LESS than the value of their work. I don't feel sorry for the big artists in terms of downloading, as they already have a lot of money, and make most of it from touring and merchandising.

[walldude]

25. Well, Beaver is a writer and there is no doubt that he/she

is going to be the one group of people that lose out on this for now. And while some smaller artists have had minor problems, most are just happy to have the music the make be heard. Lots of small bands already offer their stuff for free on their websites. Asses in seats, that's where it's at for a musician. Not just money wise either but satisfaction wise as well. There is nothing better than tearing it up in front of an audience.

[Beaverhausen]

40. I am also an indie recording artist

I have one CD released-available on CDBaby.

And I am guessing a lot of the music you all are "sharing" is also from indie artists. Most of these artists have spent their own money to write, record and distribute their music. They need the income generated from it to be able to continue to make music.

I hope that if there is an artist or band you really like that you at least once in a while actually buy one of their CDs.

[gravity]

29. The RIAA has a right to be mad

I don't agree with all of their tactics, but filesharers are downloading ILLEGALLY so they aren't any better ethically.

The copyright laws really just need to be changed so that fileharers aren't treated the same as commercial bootleggers under the law. There just needs to be fair laws dealing with this, instead having big dollar lawsuits based off outdated laws.

[walldude]

32. Why? They are a lobbying arm of the recording industry

They aren't doing this to help musicians or music fans. They are doing to help Viacom and Sony get away with ripping off consumers and musicians alike. I download lots of music. I also buy lots of music. Same with movies. Last week I downloaded a re-mastered gold copy of Pink Floyds Dark Side Of The Moon. The RIAA would like to say that the music industry lost a sale because of that. What they don't want to tell you is I already own 2 versions of the vinyl album(one sealed) an 8-track, a cassette a CD and the DVD album. Sorry but I'm not going to feel guilty for downloading a better version of an album that I already own 6 copies of.

[gravity]

36. You are ripping off people too

It goes both ways. If you own a record company and people start downloading your copyrighted items, you would be pissed off too. Its not just companies either, independent record labels are apart of the RIAA too.

I just think that its hypocritical when people call record labels greedy, when they illegally download materials that other people invested their time, money, and effort into making it.

If artists really want you to download their stuff, then they would just post it on the internet for free.

[Edweird]

33. The record labels are fighting for their life. They aren't relevant any more.

Unless you are Madonna or Sting, you're going to get the royal screwjob by the record labels. Most musicians know this. Most musicians are aware that the their income is based on concerts and merchandising. Most musicians know (or learn the hard way) that if an album doesn't sell enough to cover its overhead, they are on the hook for whatever the label advanced them. They generally don't make squat on album sales. They make it at concerts. The record labels have turned into a "protection" racket. Let the RIAA make all the noise it wants. It's a dinosaur. It's only a matter of time until it fades away.

[Richard Steele]

34. Since when did Colleges become responsible to safeguard the RIAA's interests?

All issues of copyright/theft aside, when did Colleges
agree to become part of the RIAA's enforcement division?

This is not their problem.

Imagine THIS for one second:
You get a phone call at home from the RIAA;
they tell you some of your neighbors have been
downloading MP3s illegally...
And they demand to know what *YOU* are going to do about it.

:wtf:

[plcdude]

35. You are bringing up a significant

point for institutions of higher education. I live and work in such an environment and have seen these institutions not only reject the RIAA mentality but proceed in an 180 degree course from it. We call it the university library. We stock this unit with copyright protected material and then offer it to be checked out and/or copied. What is to prevent a university from purchasing music and offering the same services?

[IronScorpio5]

39. Agree.

n/t

[wuushew]

38. kick

:kick: