Comments on: RIAA v The People – four years on

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:28:16 +0000

” “Universities should insist on a blanket license for their students, collecting a reasonable regular payment – for example, $5 a month – in exchange for the right to keep sharing music with their classmates.”

And how precisely would an artist not affiliated with the RIAA get compensated ?
A LOT of unaffiliated music ( and other files ) get shared as well. There are many who DON’T
share RIAA material at all .. why should THEY pay ?

That’s why a blanket license is no help, and not necessarily the answer.

” Right. The EFF has gone from being a genuine public-interest organization which would take anything on if it thought the cause was just to an dependent organism which only fights battles it is 99.9 percent sure of winning. ”

blaaah blaaah troll troll gurgle gurgle woof.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:51:26 +0000

Right. The EFF has gone from being a genuine public-interest organization which would take anything on if it thought the cause was just to an dependent organism which only fights battles it is 99.9 percent sure of winning.

By: ben

ben — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:58:14 +0000

“Universities should insist on a blanket license for their students, collecting a reasonable regular payment – for example, $5 a month – in exchange for the right to keep sharing music with their classmates.”

Subsidies are not the answer and never will be. The music industry needs to change and become competitive or die. Why should students be forced to support anti-competitive, price fixing monopolistic conglomerates?

If you intend to blanket license music, then what about other media? ebooks, videos, picture art, et cetera. Why should only the music industry be compensated for infringements of their copyrights? After all anything can be copyrighted, ergo, payments need to be made to everyone or no one. Otherwise it is prejudice.

I’m quite disappointed the EFF issued this remark.