RIAA school report — Slashdot comments
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- I had the usual quota of crap-mail following the Slashdot post on p2pnet RIAA school report.
Every time I post a story along these, or similar, lines, I can expect a handful of vitriolic emails usually claiming to be from professional musicians.
So just to make things clear:
I’m not saying music should be free as in free beer. I’m saying it should be free as in both unconfined and unrestricted (ie, no DRM).
Nor am I saying people shouldn’t pay for downloads.
However, I’m very definitely saying $1 and up per track is totally out of sight and out of line.
In fact, it’s blatant piracy, since that’s the word of the decade.
I’d happily pay between 25 and 45 cents for a download, or ‘X’ per month, ‘X’ per year for ‘all you can eat’ downloads. And so would millions of other online music lovers. And the Big 4 would be raking in the dollars. But they’d also have to agree to compete, and that’s a concept they can’t even begin to deal with.
But $1 each? No way, Jose.
Meanwhile, some of the /. posts are interesting.
I said Big Music ‘content’ (a la Don Henley) is formulaic. Says Mike1024 (184871):
The campaign is described as one to ‘force “consumers” to buy what they’re told to buy — corporate “content,” as the Big 4 call their formulaic outpourings.’ In a scathing indictment not only of the major record labels, but of those schools, administrators, and educators who have yet to take a stand against it
The way I see it is: If the content is so terrible, don’t download it. As you will not be infringing on anyone’s copyright, you will not get sued.
If the content is good enough that you want access to it, you either have to pay for it, or accept a small but nonzero chance of being sued and fined for copyright infringement.
I also don’t see that universities need to cover for students engaging in copyright infringement. If you connect to a torrent of ‘Heroes’ or ‘House’ or whatever, your IP address gets recorded, and the copyright holders subpoena the university to know what user had that IP address at that time, why does the university need to ‘take a stand against it’?
Now, I’d certainly agree that some stories on slashdot talk about inexplicably large fines being requested. And certainly innocent people who are wrongly accused should be entitled to reclaim reasonable costs for their defence. But to say students are being forced to buy record labels’ music, or to say that universities have a responsibility to cover up lawbreaking by their students, doesn’t really make sense to me.
In other words I found the article less ’scathing’ and more ‘worded emotively’.
Says Jeff DeMaagd (2015) :
The campaign is described as one to ‘force “consumers” to buy what they’re told to buy — corporate “content,” as the Big 4 call their formulaic outpourings.”
If it’s really crap like you say, is it really worth listening to at all? Why even download it “for free” if you think it’s crap? It just sounds like a sad excuse to download. There are alternatives to “Big 4″ music, unfortunately, sometimes the anti-RIAA crowds neglect to mention them.
Says itsdapead (734413) :
The way I see it is: If the content is so terrible, don’t download it. As you will not be infringing on anyone’s copyright, you will not get sued.
And an innocent man has nothing to fear from the Police… Good luck with that.
The issue is not that people who download music without paying for it should get given a lollipop and a pat on the back.
The issue is that people who are accused of downloading music should get a fair hearing, the chance to defend themselves (mistakes do happen) and face a punishment proportionate to the “damage” done to industry and society by their “crime”.
They should not be faced with a “Hobson’s choice” of “Confess, and pay this meerly ruinous fine - or defend yourself and hope your parents don’t mind selling their house & one of your little sister’s kidneys if you loose.”
So how much damage is done? Well, look at your CD collection: how of them are only there because, once upon a time, someone gave you a tape (remember those?) or MP3 of the artist, and when their next album came out you bought it?
Hmm…
And SanityInAnarchy (655584) (ninja@slaphack.com):
The way I see it is: If the content is so terrible, don’t download it. As you will not be infringing on anyone’s copyright, you will not get sued.
Are you really that naive?
The RIAA (or MPAA? I always lose track) has, so far, sued 12-year-olds, people who have never used a computer (and don’t know how), people who are dead…
Frankly, I don’t care whether who they catch, or how guilty they are — they are the worst example of a “fishing expedition”. I honestly don’t know how they “catch” people, but I suspect they just throw a dart at a phone book or something.
But to say students are being forced to buy record labels’ music,
I’d have to look up the exact article, but yes, there have been cases where universities have bought subscriptions to services like Napster or the Zune Store in order to provide students a place to legally download music, on the assumption that without providing this service, students would illegally download music.
And in comments to the p2pnet story, “Hey, wait a minute!,” says Carlie Coats.
“Maytag has built a very successful business by selling the quality and serviceability of their washing machines. I have not seen this kind of ruthlessness from them.”
That was in reference to —- “So music is no longer cultural, something to be enjoyed. It’s a hard-core commodity to be peddled as ruthlessly as any washing machine …..”
We didn’t mention Maytag, but Coats is dead right.
In a series of clever advertisements featuring the lonely repairman, Maytag set out to woo its customers, not sue them.
Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, on the other hand, believe intimidation and lies are the way to go.
Stay tuned.
Cheers!
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I doubt that the emails were from professional musicians. Nobody hates, or has been more victimized by, the Big 4 record labels than the performers.
I’m sure the emails were from paid trolls.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
What about also limiting copyright (in the P.S.A.) to the scope given in the constitution? How is promoting rape, random violence, illicit sex, and illegal drug use considered, “useful?”
February 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
What I find disapointing is how we allow the repeating of false claims as fact.
I challenge anyone to find me a case where someone has been sued for downloading.
Uploading is what they try to nail folks for and this should be made clear in every mention of this issue to ensure the RIAA/MPAA propaganda machine does not win by default.