‘We’re not RIAA factotums’: Vanderbilt U
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- What do Harvard – not at all incidentally, the only major university to have escaped the RIAA’s attention — and Vanderbilt University have in common? – p2pnet asked on Monday.
Answer? They both feature RIAA-inspired classes.
We included the pic on the right in our post but, “Vanderbilt is not a facototum for the R.I.A.A.,” says the university’s Sara Manus in a p2pnet Reader’s Write.
In the story, “Almost exactly a year ago, ‘We want to play nice’,” p2pnet quoted Cindy Frank, director of service delivery and project management for information technology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, as saying.
She was referring to Vanderbilt’s efforts to, “keep on the good side of the corporate music industry and its adherents, which had at that point so far cost it in the region of half-a-million-dollars,” said the story, going on »»»
“We’ve negotiated very inexpensive deals for students,” she said unblushingly. “Napster is $2 a month and offers 3 million songs. We have also spent a lot money and time marketing them. We encourage these legal methods for downloading music.”
The “bald faced admission from Frank in InsideVandy makes it clear not only is the university working — unpaid — for Napster, a desperately broke, hard-core commercial music marketing service, it’s also acting up-front for Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG” we said, adding:
“Are Napster and the Big 4 footing the bill? No. That’s down to parents and state and federal authorities responsible for America’s educational systems. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise.”
Now, “As one of the co-instructors of the class mentioned above, I thought that it would be helpful to clarify a few things,” says Manus in the comment, continuing (our paragraph breaks) »»»
Mr. Smith-Borne and I designed this course last spring for first-year students taking part in The Commons living and learning experience. The Commons had several themes for these courses, including music. Given that music piracy is a hot topic these days, we were asked about the possibility of creating a course based on this topic by other faculty. Please note that this course was in now [sic] way sponsored, suggested, etc. by the R.I.A.A.
As librarians, Mr. Smith-Borne and I regularly work with intellectual property, and we have often taught sessions on music copyright to music majors at Vanderbilt. We are often in the position of having to tell students what they can’t do according to the law, without the opportunity to have an in-depth discussion about copyright. This class presented an ideal opportunity to delve into the subject.
We had a variety of different stakeholders come to our class to talk to the students about how piracy affects their lives, and we heard many different viewpoints. The final project for the course asked the students to synthesize what they had read in their textbook (’Moser on Music Copyright’), information from the speakers, and their own research, and to use that information to build a solution that would balance the interests of record labels, artists, and consumers.
As they themselves noted during their presentations, no solution is perfect. Copyright law is incredibly complex, and certain tactics to stop file-sharing have been at best, counterproductive. I give them credit for looking at the issue from a blalanced [sic] viewpoint that is based in fact.
If you would like a better idea of what they worked on during the course, take a look at the syllabus (posted on the syllabus above). I think that you will find it proof that Vanderbilt is not a ‘facototum for the R.I.A.A.’
Sincerely,
Sara J. Beutter Manus
Education and Outreach Librarian
Anne Potter Wilson Music Library
Vanderbilt University
She and Smith-Borne, “regularly work with intellectual property,” and have, “often taught sessions on music copyright to music majors at Vanderbilt,” says Manus.
Presumably, therefore, both she or her colleague have specialised law degrees allowing them to teach with authority on this “incredibly complex” topic and to “tell students what they can’t do according to the law”.
‘Devise a workable system for distributing music’
As we noted in the post, professor Charles Nesson now has a, “rather unusual, possibly unique, element to his Evidence 2008 course,” we said recently, going on:
“Under RIAA v University, frame a motion to, ‘quash a subpoena from a copyright holder to the university for the identity of a student downloader on grounds of undue burden,’ he says in what has to be one of the most apt law courses at any US school excepting, perhaps, Maine where two student lawyers are actively representing two university students.”
Harvard is also defending Joel Tenenbaum in case which has caught the attention of the mainstream media.
By way of contrast, we reproduced the Vanderbilt write-up on its project, to wit »»»
Ten first-year students in the ‘Stealing in Music City’ seminar were challenged to re-invent the music industry for a fair model of music distribution that eliminated, or at least discouraged, music piracy.
The class divided into three groups to devise a workable system for distributing music that delivers content for a reasonable price and allows songwriters, artists and other stakeholders to get paid. While each group approached the solution differently, there were common threads.
The government needs to be more involved.
All the students agreed that the government needs to regulate the usage of DRM (digital rights management), which individual companies like Sony, Apple and Microsoft currently use.
‘Fewer DRM rules make purchasing [versus pirating] music much more appealing,’ said Vanderbilt student Leslie Miller.
Other suggestions for more government involvement included:
- Actually running a neutral, nonprofit peer-to-peer network.
- Holding peer-to-peer network owners responsible for registering and policing users.
- Overseeing mandatory copyright education at the elementary and middle school level.
If consumers want peer-to-peer networks, give it to them via subscription services.
‘Instead of looking for a solution, the RIAA has attacked consumers,’ noted Vanderbilt student Brian Wilke. ‘Not much progress has been made.’
The students agreed that peer-to-peer networks are hugely popular, and rather than fighting them groups like the RIAA and record labels should join them and offer subscription services at reasonable rates for consumers.
While one group thought the government should create and oversee such a subscription service, the other students felt that a collective licensing arrangement, similar to the one employed by BMI, ASCAP and SESAC for radio broadcasts, would be effective.
Education, particularly among young people, is crucial to stopping music piracy.
‘Its amazing to me how many students dont understand the legalities of sharing intellectual property and copyrighted material,’ Sara Manus, education and outreach librarian, said. ‘But none of the students have had an education in copyright law – they listen to their peers about what they can and cannot do.’ Manus and colleague Holling Smith-Borne, director of the music library at Vanderbilts Blair School of Music, co-taught the class.
‘I admit that I used LimeWire before this class,’ said student Rachel Koblin. She went on to propose that education about piracy and copyright laws be implemented in public schools in a plan similar to No Child Left Behind.
Other students agreed that education in schools, the earlier the better, was important. One group even proposed ‘Project Rock the Schools,’ a series of concerts across the nation to help fund education about copyright.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Did you enjoy this story, or find it interesting/useful? Help keep the posts coming by donating. No amount is too small. Cheers! And thanks.
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.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“Reasonable rates” is a nice turn of phrase. “Free” is a better one.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Yeah, I got some suggestions.
First is, copyright law isn’t working. It’s very broken. It isn’t serving its purpose, it’s been hijacked by commercial concerns into something that doesn’t even vaguely resemble it’s beginnings.
Where is public domain? The driving force behind copyright to encourage those that create to continue creating. It’s missing from the equation. It’s the trade off from allowing the copyright to begin with. Nothing you hear in your lifetime will ever be in public domain. Not unless you live to a ripe old age, exceeding near 100 years. If you heard it and remembered it as a child you may get by with less but on the whole, that’s a fair statement for all of us.
Who says stakeholders, beyond the musician have to get paid? The labels served a use during the days of physical copies and limited resources. That day has come and gone and other than advertising the artist there is nothing they do that can’t be done cheaper by the artists.
Many of the artists, termed indies because they won’t sign with major labels into what results in slave labor wages, now do it all on their own. They also get all the income for themselves and don’t have to share that with a horde of vampires intent on sucking the financial life blood from the music group. They don’t have to give way on their creative bent because some outside source said that it would sell better if they changed this or that phase, tempo of the music, or whatever.
It’s already proven that the establishment has a big problem with distribution control. That was how they made their money in the past. Distribution control is no longer under their fingertips and so it doesn’t make them the money they have had in the past. Crap, p2p distributes it for free without cost, proving that model is broken and is no longer needed, meaning that those who depended on that method to bleed everyone around them has finally been short circuited and that is why they are crying so hard about the pirate.
Then there are the slimey methods they have used over the years, for generations, to steal from others to line their pockets. These methods the labels have never believed would ever catch up with them and they could put a happy face on while stabbing the artist in the back and raking in the dough from sales.
All this mess about piracy, the laws they have literally purchased, and the glorified stinkhole of sue-em all, has me where I want none of the products from the majors. It’s one of the few items you can make a purchase on, not be able to take it back if something is wrong with it, that there is a chance if you bought an item it could land you in court, plus the general black eye of such poor public relations have lead me to the conclusion I do not want their products ever. It is not worth the payment for the hassle you the customer are expected to shoulder when you buy.
If I pay for something, it is mine. It’s not a rental. I do not agree to major labels terms for a license because I purchased the item. So there is nothing on the shelves I want to buy when it comes to movies and music.
December 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
If you were innocent and sued by directv or the RIAA, because you were innocent, hence, no proof, the fraud was committed on the court. It is illegal to sue people you know to be innocent and make a profit from such frauds. If you report it to authorities, you will likely be ignored. If the authorities ignored you then the next time you are a juror or witness do just what justice did, Ignore them. Eventually it should bring the justice back into compliance in protecting people from fraudulant lawsuits and prostituting purgerous court complaints.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Yeah thats true. I like to take pride when I buy something and be able to say yer dude I brought that game. But I do not want to buy crap. I mean if I can not play the game as much as I want, regardless of the fact that I will only play the campaighn once and the multiplayer experience won’t last forever I still demmand my right to play it as much as I want. Its the point that counts. DRM sucks, I most likely wont play a 10year old game but it is nice to know that I can play a game I buy for as long as I want. If I can not share music or it comes in a restrictive drm burdened format then it to is pointless. DRM makes a product non-user friendly. Most of the games with drm in are released on the internet with all their drm and spyware removed within a day after its launch and some weeks before its offical release date. So DRM is pointless. DRM is only targeted at non pirating people who may want to say share a game cd with a mate. You know go halfs or buy one and let them use it etc. Say you have a cool game and you just have to show it to your friends. That is what drm is fighting. Because 3 activations makes someone think about giving one of those away. And if they do they only have 3 of them. But thats pointless.
DRM is pointless because for multiplayer you have 2 options. Option 1 is where you own a pirated version of a game and you can not play on multiplayer mode, but if someone has a cracked server you can play on that server. Option 2 is where you have the legit copy and you can play on any server. Now people who really like the game, have a good enough pc, or console, have the money, and the time will go for optioon 2 and buy the game. So as long as the multiplayer experience is good enough they will pay. Now that bassicly makes singleplayer into a sort of demo. Pirate the game, play the demo, keep the copy of the demo and ethier buy or do not buy the real game. Adding drm to the real game makes someone think twice before buying the game. It means that mostpeople will probably chew through their activations and then go onto a new game leaving multiplayer deserted. Allso means that the gamewill have less people on multiplayer. ANd it means that your paying for more than your getting.
Now an anti-piracy class which esentailly teaches us that “piracy” or “sharing” is bad and wrong is disgracefull. Imagine how anoyed people would be if they started that in pre-school by saying to kids that “no thats your toy, he/she can get their parents to buy another from us” and “remember sharing is bad”. People would be mad if they where teaching that to their kids at pre-school and then they come home and start fighting and saying this is my toy by your own. Well WTF why arent people upset at this. Next they will be teaching them that it is everyone for themselvs abnd that you gota be mean to everyone.