This reminds of the I Love You virus that was once created by a student from a computer school in the Philippines. Although it was really amazing the fact still remains that what he did was illegal and absolutely wrong. If you were here you could have heard two kinds of reactions from two different groups of people. One group is consist of teachers or professors teaching computer education and people who are thirsty of appreciation, praises and the likes. All of them have one thing to say, “The student is a genius.” Is he? The other group is consist of law-abiding citizens and true professionals. They have only one thing to say,”His school should have taught him good manners especially thou shall not steal before teaching him the basics and beyond the basics of computer education.

My point is, most students nowadays are trying to be IN. As influenced by their peers, they’re obsessed with learning new stuff without realizing that it can bring them more humiliation rather than brining them to better life with friends.

portrait artists, at 6:15 am EDT on July 19, 2007

File sharing <> stealing

File-sharing isn �t everytime stealing, there are also legal things to share, not only secured material...

Berlin, at 1:45 pm EDT on July 24, 2007

A great read, very informative Been looking for a blog like this one for a while Keep up the good work.

charles bukowski, at 12:05 pm EDT on August 24, 2007

huh? record store?

I’m curious as to why your website is giving such editorial preference to this kind of inexcusable legal/moral nonsense, and, indeed, the blind greed the RIAA embodies? In the interests of fair and balanced reporting of a situation that is criminalising a whole generation, surely it’s now incumbent upon the editors to offer an equally prominent soapbox to someone who can do more than peddle half-truths and outright fantasies unchallenged.

NBA, nba at framing the argument — with lies, at 9:30 pm EDT on September 18, 2007

Quit complaining

Just like other enforcing agencies, the RIAA has a job to do, which is protect intellectual property from being used without credit to its creator. I don’t understand how music lovers got so spoiled, because when there were music stores, we may have complained about the price of a CD, but we still bought it.

I know it’s repetitive in saying the industry is changing, but deal with it. Legitimate services are trying to give spoiled music sharers music for free, like Ruckus’ advertised based model, and the complaints continue. The RIAA and companies like Ruckus are trying to work with us, and they’re only protecting artists when they file lawsuits and such. How would you like it if you created, say, a style of clothing and all of a sudden your distributor was handing out your clothing line for free and suddenly your clothes were being worn all over the street without any credit to you? Quit thinking that establishments are the enemy, it’s getting old. The issue at hand is how to fairly move from physical to digital, without consumers, artists, or labels that help develop such artists getting hurt in the process.

Enough said.

Dj Tiesto, Dj Tiesto, at 4:00 am EDT on September 27, 2007

The response to this is overwhelmingly literal and resoundingly negative. Not a single response to this article supports their claims: their stubbornness and inflexibility will prove to be their demise. Besides, who are they to talk? They’re just some jerks who try to bully their customers and steal from their workers, the musicians themselves.

As for me, I’ll continue to download and get quality versus their over-packaged, over-hyped tripe.

“The willow knows what the storm does not; the power to endure pain is far greater than the power to inflict it.”

travesti, at 5:50 pm EST on February 26, 2008

Students at Penn State also have reported some problems getting the Ruckus service to work on Apple’s Mac computers. Nevertheless, that’s still likely less commotion than they face from a pre-litigation letter.

Hidden, at 9:50 pm EDT on August 18, 2008

Ya know, I remember a day in the misty past when one could buy an LP, make a cassette tape of it, and give it to one’s friends or relatives, all free from fear of prosecution from the RIAA, as long as I did not charge anyone for the tape. My friends and I traded mix tapes all the time, which is how we discovered new songs and new bands, even new styles of music. When we found something we liked, we would search out the LP or casette and purchase it. Wonderful system. But if I want to trade songs with someone via the Web, that is illegal piracy. Sorry, I do not see any difference at all. The courts ruled many years ago that once a person purchases a record, it is theirs, and if they want to trade tapes with friends, that is their business, so long as neither party is profiting financially from the trade (wish I could remember the exact case and ruling). Why does that case ruling not appy now? I have no knowledge of it being overturned or modified. Anyone know?

Personally, I do not think the RIAA has a legal leg to stand on. I have noticed they have not had a jury decide on any of this (to my knowledge).

Warren Kristensen, at 11:30 am EDT on March 15, 2007

Right on

Right on target Warren and others.

Most of today’s content seems inherently disposable, from all the free mp3 music on new (un-discovered musicians) to free CDs given out at clubs and other venues, to text-messaging.

I don’t know of anyone who believes a successful crackdown on individual citizens’ music file-sharing will result in millions (let alone billions) of dollars to the record companies (and a small percentage of THAT to the artists). It is just not going to happen; today’s students are working to help their families pay rent, food, and transportation.

c u l 8′er

Dr. F. Gump, at 7:46 pm EDT on March 15, 2007

theft

Don’t administrators have an obligation to prepare students for the real world, where theft is simply not tolerated?

Sorry, which real world do you live in again? I live in the real world where theft is not only tolerated, it’s enshrined in corporations like Halliburton and Enron and given its own political party. Frankly, in my real world teaching students to steal intellectual material is probably an excellent training for today’s corporate culture. Your real world sounds nicer, though.

Shane in Utah, at 6:20 pm EDT on March 16, 2007

These folks act surprised to find out that by treating your customers as (potential) criminals, you’re seeing fewer of the former and more of the latter.

Memo to Mitch and Cary: I have copyrighted all my articles to claim ownership of them. Yet I freely give permission to distribute them anywhere as long as they’re kept intact — so the “online sharing of copyrighted materials” is most certainly NOT illegal in such a clear-cut fashion that you claim.

Record stores have been replaced by the Internet, iTunes, and such. Folks want ala carte stuff and if they can get it from their dorm room, they’ll do that instead of traipse to the record store. It’s sad for the record store owners, but it’s just the evolution of your industry.

You aging idiots forget that college kids have embraced the Internet as a source for music, and if YOU had embraced this new medium instead of trying to legislate against it, you’d be riding pretty in the profits right now. Yet by forcing onerous, counterproductive restrictions — both technical and legal — on music and customers, you’ve pretty much turned off this new generation to your product and industry, proving repeatedly that you care not for customer satisfaction, only customer lock-in and profiteering.

You have demonstrated your desire NOT to change with the times, so it’s only fitting to see you stumble all over yourselves trying to survive. You reap what you sow.

Rick Forno, at 1:05 pm EDT on March 17, 2007

framing the argument — with lies

Ridiculous claims without any fact-checking at all.

“College students used to be the music industry’s best customers.”

They still are! In fact, contrary to the RIAA’s claims, music sales — and profits — are UP.

RIAA boardmember remuneration is up drastically. I really have no idea why anyone would believe that they are losing money, and that’s the lie that their entire argument is built on.

Record labels are making more money than they ever have before. That is the truth. They are framing this as a lost-revenue argument, which is pure, 100% fiction. There is no lost revenue. Don’t be manipulated by them.

I think the hundreds of thousands of dollars levied against pensioners, people without computers, babies, people with no idea what file sharing even is and the deceased pretty much show this kind of bullying for what it is.

As long as universities cave into these bullies and refuse to defend their students, this will continue.

Moe Hong, at 3:06 pm EDT on March 17, 2007

huh? record store?

“Now, finding a record store still in business anywhere near a campus...”

perhaps you might consider changing your business model. I haven’t seen a record store in years. I don’t like the clutter of cd’s, records, or 8 track tapes. I think you’d do better by finding a way to make the music profitable to you, and free (and legal) to your customers. If you think it can’t be done, you aren’t trying. Ask the people you are harassing, they know of businesses who do remarkably well doing that.

another opinion, at 5:26 pm EDT on March 17, 2007

Copyleft Music

I don’t think that we need to listen to any of the music protected by the RIAA. If they want us to pay for music, then they should at least provide music worth listening to. I mean, I have broadband internet access and a 120 GB hard drive. Yet, the songs being released today are not even worth the effort to download, or even worth the 3 MB of space it will occupy on my hard drive.

There is plenty of copylefted music to listen to if you don’t want to be harassed by the RIAA, and a simple Google search will lead you to it. If a lot of people started using copylefted (or Creative Commons) music, the RIAA will disappear.

Robert Reed, at 6:56 pm EDT on March 17, 2007

You aren’t suing Americans for “stealing", you’re suing them for file-sharing (making these files available for others to “steal"). So all that “teaching us a lesson about stealing” business doesn’t make very much sense.

Besides, don’t you think that’s kind of presumptuous? You represent businesses that operate in our country out of the goodwill of it’s citizens. You are here to cater to our needs, make money, pay taxes, and that is it. Teaching lessons and exacting punishment are the role of the justice system and education system. The placement of your own organizations in these roles is innappropriate and insulting.

Matthew Maynard, at 11:06 am EDT on March 18, 2007

RIAA=NetNazis

What an elightening post from the RIAA! Gives complete validation to the first thing that popped into my non copyrighted brain about half way through-NetNazis. Or, Profiteering Capitalist Scum, PCS. Your little screed about “values” is hilarious. Capitalist “values” in universities are little more than indoctrinating generation after generation to be compliant, obedient little consumers beholden to your arbitrary “copyright protections” (eupehemism for industry profit protection). You, sirs and madams of the RIAA, are a joke, unnecessary and extraneous middle men, and soon-to=be-dinosaurs as college students, artists and the general population continue to circumvent your corporate capitalist hegemony. Coporate obedience is antithetical to creative freedom.

unmask911, at 1:46 pm EDT on March 18, 2007

moral character...hummm.

Interesting that the industry that currently relies heavily on glorifing thug life (killing cops, and degrading women or worse..etc. ), are suddenly all concerned with the moral character of America’s teens.

They are only concerned with their own pocketbooks...and that is the true crime here.

bridgeplayer, at 6:00 pm EDT on March 18, 2007

to the universities

As a mother of someone about to enter college, and more teens to follow..I respectfully request that you don’t cooperate with this organization before they start policing their own industry. I just revewed the top 100 “hits” on I-tunes and about 1/2 of them are rated “explict". If they would stop polluting our children’s minds and the public airways, perhaps I would have a bit more sympathy to their financial issues.

How am I suppose to tell my son that he cannot “steal” music that is basically about how great it is to be a gansta? In JT’s words what goes around comes around!

bridgeplayer, at 6:00 pm EDT on March 18, 2007

Note to Gwar.

If individual artists got to choose how they distribute their music, how many of them do you think would be using DRM crippled models? It doesn’t benefit artists to any degree.

Artists are not the ones using DRM to (or it’s removal) to sue the crap out of people. They’re the ones that lose money due to less legitimate online sales. CD sales haven’t gone down. They go up every year. Profits haven’t gone down. Again up, every year. Yet constant bull about Billions in lost profits!

Itsumishi, at 7:45 pm EDT on March 18, 2007

MAFIAA

MAFIAA.

That’s all there is to it. The RIAA should be being prosecuted under RICO. The self-righteous hypocrisy these guys spout is simply mind-boggling.

Matt, at 5:30 am EDT on March 19, 2007

Record Stores Abundant

Finding record stores near colleges is difficult? For who? As a college student who has visited friends at Villanova, Univeristy of Delaware, NYU, Wake Forest, and who attends Boston University, I can attest that there are thriving record stores within walking distance to ALL of them. I’ve never heard of a record store closing due to proximity to a university, as this article seems to imply. In fact, my friends at these schools buy more music now than they ever did in high school; due to exposure to more music via networked and internet file sharing, they are discovering more music that they enjoy and consider worth purchasing. But this broadened perspective is bad for the RIAA’s business. Why? Because independent record labels are making the effort to reach out to college students, get them interested, and provide them with great entertainment, while the RIAA is taking them to court.The record stores that I have mentioned sell and stock a huge selection of independent music; I would hazard to guess that the percentage of independent music sold is much higher than at shopping malls or department stores. I am an avid music collector and I have found much to love in the quirky, indepedent, and opionated record stores that I see near or on every major campus I visit. The President and CEO of the RIAA see college campuses as problem areas, but in reality, they are mirrors — and what they show is the downfall of their out-of-touch, outdated, antagonistic business model.

Terence F., at 5:30 am EDT on March 19, 2007

$$$

I’m amused to note that, in this careful explanation, there is no mention of how much a group of people generally noted to be cash-strapped have to pay. It’s all about the money, not the music. They would probably ask the same amount from a hacker who downloaded sensitive information about those working at the RIAA in the form of an.mp3.

Tem D’Mindu, UW, at 5:30 am EDT on March 19, 2007

The problem is not the students.

Any college administrator or professor needs to educate students; not feed them this BS story.

If you want to educate people in social responsibility, tell them not to buy CDs from RIAA member labels, that way there will be less money in RIAA coffers to sue their friends.

I used to buy RIAA music; but I haven’t bought an album from them in 8 years — not because of piracy but because I don’t want one red cent to go to them.

I feel so strongly about it that if I was enrolled at an institution of higher learning and they entered into a deal with the RIAA to use student fees to pay for music I find morally repugnant (because of the RIAA, not because of the lyrics) that I would immediately drop out of that school and transfer to another one after making clear that that is the reason I’m leaving the school.

Brian Boyko, Alumni, M.A. at University of Texas, at 10:45 am EDT on March 19, 2007

Failing Music Industry?!?

I think everyone here could admit that these two fellows are confusing the issue drastically.

Their concern isn’t for lost jobs in the industry, it’s about lost control.

The one major change the internet, P2P, and digital technology has had on Music is that control is now in the hands of the artists.

Lost jobs?!? There are more producers and recording artists than ever! I have many friends in successful bands. They record their material in basements and independent studios. THEY choose how to distribute their music. You will never make any money from them. AND THAT’S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE!!!

If an unknown band suddenly gets attention via P2P I’m sure they would be overjoyed. Shows will sell out and their records will sell too. The RIAA doesn’t fit into this equation, and I have no problem with that.

You would be wise to notice that only your Lawyers will benefit from all this whining-Because the RIAA has already lost.

Rocco, at 11:46 am EDT on March 19, 2007

What on Earth were they thinking

I remember the days when you could play your music on anything I owned. Granted that wasn’t to long ago, but anyway. Once upon a time, you could go out and buy a CD rip it onto your computer, copy it onto your MP3 player, and with a little wiring listen to it in your car. Now, however, if you go out to buy the CD, you gotta worry about rootkits, if you rip it to your brand new Vista computer, M$ locks down the music you just paid for. Now, lets look at music from online stores, I download a song from (insert store name here), now I need the proprietary player from that site then I can only listen to it on sanctioned MP3 players, and sometimes I cannot burn it to an MP3 disk so I can enjoy the music I PAID for in MY car. So tell me, MR RIAA Man, how is this “better use of technology” for me. I could have the same freedom to listen to MY music where I want, when I want, if I get it from one of the file sharing sites, that I enjoyed in the early days.

purvis, at 2:38 pm EDT on March 19, 2007

Unfortunately, Mr. Bainwol and Mr. Sherman think that extortion will force people back to their old brick and mortar model of paying $20 for a CD that only has three good songs on it, and costs nickels to manufacture...and where the artist only gets roughly 50 cents of profit.

The RIAA has consistently dropped the ball when it comes to new technology regarding online music. In 1998 they sued Diamond Multimedia to prevent them from selling the Rio, which was the first mp3 player ever made. Had they won that court case, there would be no ipod today, and people would still have to lug around bulky CD players that skip and can only hold as many songs as one CD holds.

If the RIAA wants to get back in the saddle, they need to quit being so stubborn and make several reforms, the following in particular:

1. Pay your artists more money and allow them to maintain their intellectual property rights. You complain and moan about how downloading hurts music artists, yet as recently as this past December, you have tried to cut their share of royalties collected for their songs. You have also tried to force them to turn over revenue from their concerts, revenue that they are dependent upon because YOU are cheating them out of royalties from their music sales.

2. Embrace the means of distribution for online music. The old pay-per-song and pay-per-album model doesn’t work with the online world. “The masses” have tasted unlimited music from every major artist in history, and have more choice available on LimeWire and Bit Torrent than they do with itunes, Ruckus, or your pathetic “legit” version of Napster. Consumer choice is good, and downloading helps this.

3. A practical way of embracing unlimited downloads is to sign blanket licensing agreements with ISPs and Universities. Under such a program, a user of an ISP would pay a monthly premium fee ($5-$10 is reasonable) for the rights to continue file-sharing as before. Universities could offer similar programs on a pay-per-semester basis, with discounts offered to students who use the universities networks. The ISPs and universities would then fork over the cash to you, which in turn would go to the artists. You can also measure the popularity of certain artists by monitoring p2p networks and working with the makers of the software to track the number of times that certain songs are downloaded in order to determine which artists gets a certain number of proceeds. In essence, this licensing system would be super-imposing the licensing systems for radio and broadcast television, which is hardly a radical innovation. Consumers would THINK that they are downloading for free, when they are indirectly paying for the music.

4. Eliminate cumbersome DRM for CDs and online music. Sony’s rootkit fiasco should have been the end of that, but sadly, your continue to cling to this disaster. DRM is nothing more than an unfair digital toll booth, and restricts fair use in the consumer’s right to copy their music for personal use and in backing up their music.

5. If you want an alternative to DRM, then in addition to a collective licensing system, you can have p2p software makers retool their software to track which IP addresses using the software are authorized to file-share, and which ones are not. If an unauthorized user who forgot to pay his $5-$10 monthly fee tries to download, the p2p software itself will block him in real-time, while the music file itself won’t need to be copy-protected. The key is using the MEANS OF DOWNLOADING to limit wide-spread non-fair use copyright, NOT by taking a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude against the consumers.

6. Take the lead again in developing new music formats. The mp3 format, while revolutionary, is sub-par in terms of sound quality. Perhaps enhancing ACC, or adapting the open source Ogg Vorbis format would be a solution. The RIAA was created to track the sound curves of Vinyl records, so taking such an initiative fits well within the RIAA’s original purpose. Also, forget about DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD. Those formats will go the way of LaserDisk, especially since the DVD will be replaced with either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Perhaps a Blu-Ray Audio or HD-DVD Audio format would work? Also, another practical solution of continuing to sell physical media would be to sell music albums on miniature USB jump drives that could be uploaded to people’s computer’s. In addition, in order to attract people to music stores again, put music videos, live concert tapings, and personal interviews with the artist on every physical medium. Niche buyers will still go to brick and mortar record stores, but they want premium content and their money’s worth. $15-$20 for the regular CD is a blatant ripoff, especially when DVD’s, which hold movies that cost million more dollars to make than albums, are now being sold for the same price.

ABT, Student at Syracuse University, at 5:46 pm EDT on March 19, 2007

That’s the old passage to RIAA: We don’t go there anymore

The business model that RIAA still using is dead. As simple as that. People do not want plastic discs with a dozen songs made in a industrialized way. People want to pick the songs they like and play them in small MP3-players and computers and stereos and car stereos, and... Without restrictions.

Here in Europe has the live scene doubled in less than 10 years, and I think it’s the same in the US. The music is in very, very good health. Richer and in more flavours than ever before. It’s just that old RIAA that can’t adopt.

And the mere thought to take your best customers to the judge is just lunatic! The music industry is hereby setting new records every day in alienating their customer base.

Almost everyone nows by now from which company NOT to buy a CD. We don’t buy from EMI, Sony-BMG, Vivendi or Warner anymore.

I come to think of Half-life 2 and Alyx:That’s the old passage to RIAA — We don’t go there anymore...

T (Sweden), at 8:45 pm EDT on March 19, 2007

I would advise them to look for their solutions...in the mirror

I was, at one time, a music retailer. I *worked* in the “music industry", sold products created by the music industry and knew people in the music industry — and not minor people, mind you, but both major musicians AND industry corporate executives. I even had friends behind the mixing boards of 2 high profile New York studios.

Why is the music industry floundering, for the last *10* years? It is very complex.

But maybe the RIAA should look in the MIRROR for some of their answers.

In the mid-90’s you could buy MAJOR new releases from *major* artists...IN SUPERMARKETS. The major record labels had quite ridiculous minimum order requirements for orders placed directly with them, forcing almost every small music store to purchase via the One Stop system. The One Stops, on the other hand, were squeezed by the record labels under the very same minimum order regulations — instead of openly supporting the One Stop’s actual requirements — causing the One Stops to grossly overstock back catalog selections in order to have a supply at all.

By the late 1990’s a number of One Stops — some of the largest music distributors in the entire nation — were bankrupt, due to dead overstock that the record labels forced down their throats...and then wouldn’t take back.

Most CD prices have never come down to point where the “Average” consumer believes their value to lay. Therefore a good majority of consumers feel they have been “ripped off” by the music industry for the last 12 years and feels justified in copying music, rather than buying it. For the “Average” consumer, a music CD is NOT — repeat NOT — worth $18 in “manufacturing” costs. Most consumers have been waiting for the increased production efficiencies of high technology to make it to the CD music market and LOWER the cost of music CDs in the manner of computer CD-Rs and other technologies.

The music industry has held fast to their pricing structures which has alienated consumers (don’t believe me? See the other comments here!), allowing the consumer to come to the conclusion that they are overpaying for merchandise in a market where prices for new technologies *drop* a few years after introduction…not stay stagnant.

In this respect the music industry is sticking to an outmoded business model: instead of seeking profits through reduced costs and higher volumes, the music industry is sticking to the 1950’s model of ever-increasing profits through higher prices, expecting the consumer to pay whatever they wish to charge. From cameras to cell phones to computers, and on and on, the modern consumer now expects prices to DROP after a defined time of initial payback of technological progress…but the average consumer does not feel that this has ever happened to the music that they (would like to) purchase.

This has LED to a mindset in some music consumers, by a belief of being “taken advantage of", that the music industry is not “playing fair” and therefore the downloading and sharing of music – even in the ‘original’, digital format – to be justified.

The music industry has decided to market the largest portion of its wares to the 15 – 25 year old consumer. This consumer, in general, has a *limited* discretionary budget. Therefore the music industry has intentionally marketed itself to a consumer with limited resources…yet, by the same token, they keep prices steady or worse, increasing.

This is a recipe for disaster – and this is the disaster than the music industry has been in over the last 10 years:

- develop a pattern of non-repeatable sales profiles (read: “one-hit wonders") - close distribution channels and / or make channels extremely limited (read: make dealing with industry so difficult that distributor goes bankrupt and / or specialized retailers close shop) - fail to support said specialized retailers, thereby removing experienced and enthusiastic salespeople from the industry (read: sell largely to “big box” retailers, who use music as a “loss-leader” to get people into their stores to buy other goods, rather than build excitement for the music industry’s products exclusively) - market to demographic with limited resources (read: market to 15 – 25 year olds with limited discretionary spending) - retain “high” pricing, as a percentage of said demographic’s total discretionary income (read: charge more than your customers feel the product is truly worthy of, consistently) - alienate both long term supply base and their customers (read: fail to support a broad depth of music types, along with failing to market more “classic” musician’s new albums) - anger customer base with (sometimes) unprovable legal assaults, with offers of “settlement” out of line with (probable) actual losses (read: RIAA legal suits against consumers. with high out of court “settlement” offers) - failure to design reasonable alternate business pattern (read: fail to develop high profile online sales and marketing, designed to target the high-tech audience that the “15 – 25 year olds” have become) - disenfranchise some of the suppliers you depend on for your products (read: alienate some of your own musicians with terrible pay and market schemes (see: Courtney Love, http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/, et al), all the while allowing your top executives to continue to earn large year-end bonuses and pay scales)…

The list goes on and on, and on…

They have shot though the foot…and expect the end consumer to pay for the medical bills!

Snake, at 8:46 pm EDT on March 19, 2007

Now that I think about it, art museums have probably lost billions of dollars because people have looked at the art through the windows! They should form the AIAA, which sues people for failing to pay every time they look at paintings and sculptures.

MF, at 8:50 pm EDT on March 19, 2007

RIAA steals, not us, proven in the Supreme Court

In 1985 a case went through as you CEOs should know. But apparently you guys aren’t too fond of this type of history. The Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement does not automatically mean someone is stealing. Also downloading is not technically considered illegal yet. Never has a court case ruled someone guilty because of downloading music alone, only guilty by sharing music (uploading). RIAA takes all the money the iTunes Music Store and keeps it, stealing from the artists who get none of the money (yet the artists are what MAKE the record labels, each artist contributes to making the labels successful, because without the artists the labels are nothing. I don’t like Def Jam I like Linkin Park.) So let’s get this straight, the RIAA is ripping artists off and accusing listeners of stealing? Trying to get legislation passed and suing the hell out of the very people who buy your experiences (yeah, the music is only promotional now, it’s worth $0.00, a blind dumbass could see how it’s about selling the experience around the music now, not the music itself) is the perfect way to force yourselves out of business.

I can’t wait until you guys do fall apart, it’ll be funny as hell, but at the same time quite sad and shameful since the RIAA was so uninformed and stubborn... the RIAA just never did understand the economics of the new millennium, it was quite sad really :( That time is coming a lot sooner than you think, so do something about it now and salvage a fraction of what you could’ve been.

It’s actually amusing how the two CEOs wrote something so inaccurate, shows everyone in the world in detailed fashion how dumb and insensitive about people the RIAA is. Do everyone a favor and write another piece, it made me and many others LOL while reading it.

xD

James Stevens, College Student, Entrepreneur at Tarleton State University, at 4:25 am EDT on March 20, 2007

Hmm?

[quote]The RIAA has every right to sue...and should. Everybody settles because they know they’ll lose. Its not a mystery. This is entirely different from mixtapes you made for your friends in 1989. You can’t take somebody’s property, distribute it to millions without their permission and honestly say this is the same.[/qoute]

Now, you hold there for a second! Illegal? Sorry, but I can’t see how illegal file-sharing is, at all...The definition of Internet is a Network of Networks, where data flows back and forth FREELY!

If it is illegal to share your files with millions, then how can it be legal to share files within a small community/small network (for instance some ISPs give their customers an ability of publishing files on their web-sites, and download it using FTP e.g.), or even with a single individual ("Hey mate, check this song out, that I have attached to the mail"), what if I have hundreds of friends and those friends have hundreds of their friends?

The whole damn concept of copyright infringement fails to be applied to the Internet itself, because it is almost uncontrolable and thats what “pisses off” all the Media Businesses and Goverenments! The lack of control made Free File-Sharing possible!

I can download music easily, without Bit Torrent or Limewire (which is an awful app., lots of Hacks and Spiware are tested through this network), just using Google, through a simple index search :

-inurl:(htm|html|php) intitle:"index of” +"last modified” +"parent directory” +description +size +(wma|mp3) “Write Artist’s Name Here”

The one who has access to the Information has the power, this is the Age of Media!

Internet gives limitless access to any information(to anyone who is capable of searching in the right places), It is obvious that many are trying to restrict and narrow this ability to a few.

There is NO way RIAA, that seems to be like a cartel to me (A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members, which is illegal, by the way), is going to stop people from gaining access to uploaded music, not until Web 2.0 will be applied(referring to an update of the Internet or the World Wide Web technical standards).

With an A-Team of lawyers, similar to those that Apple Inc. has, anyone who has been sued by RIAA, would be able to win. But no, those fools are suing the people that are not capable to stand up for themselves, and still, somehow, this Cartel lost several suits (RIAA Eats Crow, Drops Suit on Dead Man’s Children, RIAA Sues Teen, Gets B****slapped, RIAA Doles Out Legal Fees to Woman They Sued)

I agree that at some point, it is a shame that artists do not get their buck from the music that has been uploaded on the web, even though it is only happening, because Music Industry was not able to predict the market behavior and did not react in time. Right now there is no point in regulating, what is already wide-spread. Fools at RIAA and mediocre people that believe in RIAA’s retarded statements (which really are based on a slippery ground) Need to Adapt!

There have been several great business propositions, done by the previous annotators/commenters, that will work in a long run.

Until then, this imbecilic regulations “will be met with outrage from all sides"!

Regards Hashton

Hashton, at 7:10 am EDT on March 20, 2007

The Real Issue

The fundamental problem with the RIAA position is simple: 1) They provide an increasingly lousy product 2) They charge too much for it 3) They make it difficult for artists to produce it 4) They under compensate artists for their work 5) They squash technological innovation in playback 6) They are intrusive and abusive in how consumers consume a product legally purchased7) They get away with it because they have your congressman in their pocket

gab, at 9:51 am EDT on March 20, 2007

First off, the RIAA are nothing more than marionette’s being manipulated by the big 4 record labels. The RIAA is just regurgitating the garbage coming from Sony BMG, EMI, Universial, and Warner.

Downloading music en masse that you have not paid for is stealing, no ifs and or buts. Sometimes you find material you like from new artists and you may go and purchase more material. P2P networks do drive some sales, but let’s not bury our heads in the moral sands — it is vastly used to steal music. Sure, some content downloaded via P2P is material people would not necessarily purchase, but they download it because it’s there. People are getting something for free they know they should pay for. It’s no different than downloading movies or computer software without paying for it.

With that being said, the Big 4 Labels are nothing more than archaic industry hooligans desperate to maintain the status quo on their industry. Like others have said, they need to change with the times and deliver a fair product through a medium their customers are comfortable with. Steve Jobs open letter was right on. I can’t even fathom how much money a legal music download operator would make if they gave their customers the ability to select uncompressed WAV files, lossless formats like FLAC or WMA or even lossy fomats where the customer was able to choose the codec and compression rate — with no DRM. The reason you don’t get your choice of codec and receive the DRM is because the music industry doesn’t make nearly as much money with downloads as they do with their bread and butter CDs.

The music industry will continue to push back against the consumer for as long as possible. It’s an unfortunate reality, we as consumers need to keep pushing for change.

B Leisle, RIAA needs to ride the wave or they’ll find themselves under it, at 11:59 am EDT on March 20, 2007

Just to clear one thing up first, copyright infringement is indeed a criminal act (not just civil), whether you call it stealing or sharing. The NET Act broadened the definition of “Financial gain” to include receiving (or expecting to receive) anything of value, including other copyrighted works. So during any 180-day period, 10 or more copies having a retail value of more than $2,500 being “shared” makes it a felony. You can run semantics all day, but courts addressed this issue specifically to deal with warez an file-sharing. With that being said, I think that the RIAA is way off base in what they are trying to accomplish. If they were not apparently losing money from diminishing record sales, would they care about social norms such as teaching students not to steal IP? My guess is we would not even be having this discussion if there was not a financial motivation. Great points above about the lyrics and messages of the music that is being “stolen". Would most music listeners complain if the music produced to by Bentleys and such disappeared and only the music of people wanting to get their style and voice out there to express themselves was left? One last thing, the issue brought up by the authors about comparing file-sharing to plagiarism of papers. Really? No one is turning in mp3s as their own work, but only using them for there entertainment value. Downloading or reading a paper on a subject that you are writing a paper on is not plagiarism unless you use ideas and do not give credit where credit is due. If you are going to analogize, at least pretend like you know what you are talking about.

This Is So One Sided, at 1:56 pm EDT on March 20, 2007

I see plenty of record stores

“Now, finding a record store still in business anywhere near a campus is a difficult assignment at best”

This is a huge lie. I live in Columbus OH and directly across the street from the OSU campus is 3 RECORD stores and 1 CD store.

A small college nearby in Westerville OH has 1 record store within walking distance.

I visit the record store about once a week. Thou I mainly purchase records from smaller labels that are not part of the RIAA because the RIAA puts out to much bad music.

Joel, at 5:46 pm EDT on March 20, 2007

How I choose to spend my money

I have made my peace with DRM protected content about a year ago: if it restricts the ways I can watch/listen to it, I don’t want it. The Police are going to tour in Europe this fall. I am going to pay 400 � (800 USD) for 2 tickets to the concert. I am NOT going to pay 0.5 � (1 USD) for one of their songs if it has any DRM attached to it.Want me to pay the same amount of money for a concert of one of the new RIAA darlings? Let me listen to their music, see if I like it.

cyanna, at 5:46 am EDT on March 21, 2007

What kind of crap is this?

“. . . a teachable moment — an opportunity to educate these particular students about the importance of music in their lives and the importance of respecting and valuing music as intellectual property”

I have one word for the RIAA. . . Blowback.

If you don’t want kids to steal, then don’t get caught using payola scams.

If you don’t want kids to steal, then don’t get caught price fixing by the FTC — twice since 2000.

If you don’t want kids to steal, then don’t reward people like Glazier by giving them jobs at the RIAA after they pass legislation to strip artists of their legitimate copyrights.

If you don’t want kids to steal, then don’t teach them that stealing pays.

The RIAA is a den of snakes. They are the proverbial plank in their own eye.

What the hell is this corporate propaganda doing on this site?

Wrw, WSU, at 12:43 pm EDT on March 21, 2007

>>The RIAA is not asking colleges to prop up its business model, it’s asking them to obey the law.

The law has nothing to do with it. The Schools are NOT legally responsible to deliver the RIAA’s enforcement letters w/o any court orders. The RIAA is simply trying to get the Schools to help out so it can minimize the amount of court cases it needs to file with shaky evidence.

>>So you wouldn’t mind if I made better use of your house than you do while you’re on vacation, right? I’ll pay you for it — as long as you don’t get to object to my invasion of your right to exclude others from using your property...

Making physical property analogies like this NEVER work... it’s like comparing software to cars. IF i had my house available for public use. IF you made a copy of my house for your own use. IF you took that COPY of my house and let other people make their own copies.. then it’s a little more accurate.

>>Who cares if they make a profit? Isn’t it still reproducing music without permission? Your country’s laws prohibit what you’re doing just as the laws of the US do — I’d watch out for your own RIAA.

Actually there is a distinction. The NET act specifically allows for a limited quantities of distribution as long as there is no profit from it. I believe it is $2500 in retail value over a period of six months.

>>Just like other enforcing agencies, the RIAA has a job to do, which is protect intellectual property from being used without credit to its creator. I don’t understand how music lovers got so spoiled, because when there were music stores, we may have complained about the price of a CD, but we still bought it.

The big complaints are a twofold: 1) Their enforcement techniques are closer to a extortion. They gather very speculative evidence (that so far has NOT held up in court) and threaten people with lawsuits if they don’t pay up. Most of their targets are people who don’t even have enough money to hire a lawyer to defend themselves.2) I also don’t like how a large corporate entity is allowed to buy new laws... and very bad ones at that (DMCA) to promote their own self interests at the cost of the people.

ryusen, at 4:55 pm EDT on March 22, 2007

Judged by the Friends You Keep, aka Guilt by Association

“Extortion”? “Protection racket”? ("RICO"?!) Is this a taint universities really want to risk?

U. Wisconsin, to its credit, evidently doesn’t think so. (http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1945/not-my-job)

John Clark, Professor at U. Colorado at Denver & Health Sciences Ctr., at 10:51 am EDT on March 23, 2007

DOWN with RIAA!!!!

You will try and litigate, legislate, impose artificial scarcity via DRM on a commodity which, in the market, would now fetch a FRACTION of the cost of a CD because you want to retain your enormous profit margins!

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We will not stop until you are bankrupt, the system falls apart, and music lives on for music’s sake. THE IDEA THAT I SHOULD PAY FOR AN INFINITELY REPROUDUCABLE GOOD TO FUND MILLIONAIRES IS LAUGHABLE. The horse and buggy has no right to exist on our streets; the telegraph has no right to exist in our modern market, the RIAA cover artist, songwriter, or record store has no right to impede the progress of humanity. You are archaic and unnecessary. We have found a better way, we don’t need you, we will actively make you fall!

James, at 9:45 pm EDT on March 29, 2007

Sad...

What I find very disturbing is the continual misstatement of the problem by the RIAA and other organizations. For example (within THIS very article) there is the misrepresentation of the findings of the Student Monitor. It is NOT more than half but ONLY 29% of students who admitted in commiting such illegal activity. Don’t believe me, please see http://www.studentmonitor.com/press/11.pdf.

Do not misunderstand me, yes 29% is still bad. But, is it any worse than misrepresenting the truth to Congress and the world?

Tony, at 3:25 pm EDT on May 31, 2007