p2pnet - rss feed: University p2p ‘report’
p2pnet.net News:- Increasing numbers of schools across the US are giving in to virtual blackmail.
They’re allowing the entertainment industry to turn their institutions into marketing and distribution outlets, and school police units, to protect students from being sued - by the industry.
A ‘report’ from Hollywood’s Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities (JCHEEC) says at least 20 universities have signed deals with hard-core commercial online music sales companies, including Napster II and RealNetworks, to allow them sell ‘product’ turned out by the Big Four record label cartel.
“We are even witnessing that some candidates for student government positions are running on platforms that encourage university administrators to adopt on-line music services,” boasts the entertainment industry document.
Destined for the subcommittee on courts, the internet, and intellectual property of the House Judiciary Committee, it also points out many universities “have also made the anti-piracy message a fixture of student orientation sessions” while others are “using technology to filter or block file-sharing over their networks”.
The committee is chaired by Big Four record label supporter senator James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Members of the JCHEEC include Graham Spanier, co-chairman and president of Penn State, the first university to be pulled into the scheme, and senior administrators from the University of Rochester, the second institution to be signed up.
The other JCHEEC co-chair is Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, owned by the record label cartel. He’s one of the people principally behind Big Music’s on-going legal sue ‘em all war against men, women and children accused of not paying for ‘product’ owned by the Big Four record labels.
None of the 3,995 victims sued by JCHEEC ‘entertainmment’ members have been proven guilty of anything because no one has appeared before a judge. Defendants are always encouraged to settle out of court and to date, Big Music with its bottomless pockets and heavyweight legal teams, remains unchallenged.
“I’ve never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,” said US district judge Nancy Gertner recently.
As far as students are concerned, “New and creative means of enforcement” are being employed and “for those students who have questioned the vigilance of their own schools, this past year has reminded them that responsibility does not wait for graduation,” says the five-page document, going on:.
“The much-publicized lawsuits by the music industry were brought to campuses as 158 students from 35 universities across the country found ………”
The University of Florida is singled out for special mention for developing ICARUS, a way to report its own students to the Big Four’s RIAA.
Nor is the RIAA’s Audible Magic ‘filter’ software neglected. Ir’s used by some schools for “weeding out infringing transmissions on p2p networks,” says the report, borrowing heavily from senator Orrin Hatch’s ‘If you say it often enough people - especially the mainstream media - will eventually believe it’ philosophy.
Concludes the ‘report’, “[…]many different segments of academia have contributed their views and perspectives on how higher education should address the issues posed by illegal file-sharing. Each year, university administrations experiment with the offerings and combinations that work best for them. Even more changes are likely in the coming years, based on the experiences gleaned from the efforts now being tried.
“We welcome these initiatives.”
And you thought the fees you’re paying were to educate your children.
Go here for a .pdf of the document.
Below is a list of JCHEEC members as of September 2, 2003. We haven’t been able to find a more current one and there will have been a number of changes. For example, Warner Music is under new ownership, Hilary Rosen was replaced by Mitch Bainwol and the MPAA’s Jack Valenti is now semi-retired.
It’s interesting to note that committee member Barry K. Robinson, the RIAA’s senior counsel for corporate affairs who deals with “day-to-day” legal matters for the association, including trademark violations, is also a Penn State trustee; and, that a Richard Gooch represents the IFPI, an overseas entertainment industry enforcement group with no laudable interest in American affairs beyond the fact its boss, Jay Berman, used to run the RIAA.
Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities
Higher Education Representatives
Molly Corbett Broad, President, University of North Carolina; John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University; Charles Phelps, Provost, University of Rochester; Dorothy K. Robinson, Vice President and General Counsel, Yale University; and, Graham Spanier (Cochair), President - Pennsylvania State University
Staff
Mark Luker - Vice President, EDUCAUSE; Shelley Steinbach, Vice President and General Counsel, American Council on Education; and, John Vaughn, Executive Vice-President, Association of American Universities
Entertainment Industry Representatives
Roger Ames, Chairman and CEO, Warner Music Group; Matthew T. Gerson, Senior Vice President, U.S. Public Policy and Government Relations, Vivendi Universal; Sherry Lansing, Chairman, Paramount Pictures; Hilary Rosen, Chairman and CEO RIAA; Cary Sherman (Cochair), President, RIAA; and, Jack Valenti, President and CEO, MPAA
Staff
Fritz Attaway, Executive Vice President Government Relations and Washington General Counsel, MPAA; Troy Dow, Vice President and Counsel for Technology and New Media, Motion Picture Association of America; Mitch Glazier, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Legislative Counsel, Vivendi Universal; Barry Robinson, Senior Counsel for Corporate Affairs, RIAA; and, han Whitehead, Vice President and Anti-Piracy Counsel, RIAA.
Technology Task Force of the Joint Committee
Higher Education Members
Charles Phelps (Chair); Dave Lambert, Vice President and CIO, Georgetown University; and, Michael McRobbie, Vice President for Information Technology and CIO, Indiana University
Task Force Staff
Mark Luker, Vice President, EDUCAUSE
Entertainment Industry Liaisons to the Technology Task Force
Cary Sherman (Senior Liaison), President, RIAA; Joseph Cates, Vice President, Advance Technology, Universal Music Group; Dr Richard Gooch, IFPI; Brad Hunt, Sr Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Motion Picture Association of America; Jonathan Whitehead; and, Liaison Staff
Liaison Staff
Bruce Block, Senior Vice President for Technology, RIAA
August 25th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
senator Orrin Hatch’s ‘If you say it often enough people - especially the mainstream media - will eventually believe it’ philosophy.
Uh try Goebbel’s philosophy, check google if you don’t believe me.
August 25th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
How dare you imply that the industry is not doing this for the good of the nation!
August 25th, 2004 at 5:58 pm
In the new spirirt of cooperation with unversities which has been fostered by their many lawsuits, threats, and acts extortion, the RIAA has graciously offered up a new Pledge of Allegiance:
“I pledge allegiance to the RIAA
Of the four all-powerful Music Labels.
And to the monopoly for which it stands,
One corporation, above even God,
Indivisible,
With liberty and justice for those who have enough money to buy it.”
Daily recital of the new Pledge and sworn affidavits that they will spend all of their disposable income on official RIAA product will be required of every student beginning immediately.
August 25th, 2004 at 6:08 pm
Help…which universities and colleges have done this?
August 25th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
This article makes it sound like encouraging students to pay the copyright owners for their music is wrong. This article makes it sound like copyright infringment is not wrong. This article is morally bankrupt.
August 25th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
heh - now have a look here ; ) http://p2pnet.net/story/2255
Cheers!
August 25th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
Goebbels cannot take credit, his techniques were patterned after the USA’s highly successful propaganda machine of WW1, which was developed by psychologists such as Edward Bernays in his work for the Creel Commission. The American-produced WW1 propaganda was so incredibly effective in shaping US public opinion, that later the Nazis put great effort into studying and applying these techniques of mass-persuasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
August 25th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
What does this whole thing really mean? I’m no fan of subsidizing music services coming straight out of tuition costs, but what universities are saying is: “don’t use our networks to trade copyrighted material…here’s an alternative.” Don’t like it? Buy some CDs, dude!
Guess what? A service company runs your school’s food courts. A service company runs your school’s bookstore. Now a service company will run a music download service. Big deal!
If you’re such a critic of copyright laws in this country, write your own music and share it freely with others who do the same (that’s what I do). There are thousands of new titles every week and its really great music!
Here are some links:
http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=freemusic
http://somesongs.com
http://webjay.org/
“With liberty and justice for those who have enough money” HAHAHAHA. Kind of like buying a car. Buying gas. Buying lunch. Buying your date a necklace. Or should those be freely available?
August 25th, 2004 at 8:22 pm
……Guess what? A service company runs your school’s food courts. A service company runs your school’s bookstore.
Guess what dude - these are ’service’ companies. Like they provide real services. Music ’services’ ain’t services. They just sell record lable crap and that’s ALL they do. So stfu.
August 25th, 2004 at 8:56 pm
You must have read a different article. The one I read talked about a corporate cartel using threats of lawsuits and criminal suits to intimidate schools into selling out and spying on their students.
Try reading the article I read and then get back to us.
August 25th, 2004 at 9:37 pm
Thanks for the reply. I don’t however thank you for assuming that I don’t approve of protecting the rights of the creators of music–I am a musician, and I do care about those rights. What I do disapprove of is the way the current copyright laws work. Make no mistake, the copyright laws as currently written protect the middlemen. And why not? They were *written” by the middlemen. In the current system, the creators of music get screwed, the listeners get screwed–the only ones who make out like bandits are the toll collectors who sit between the two. The current copyright laws are an imperfect solution to a real problem. The RIAA / record labels have a long and chequered history of abusing and extending those imperfections for the sole reason of profit–their own.
If you think letting “service companies” whose sole motivation is profit into the educational world–whether it be for food distribution, or music distribution–won’t end up with the schools and students getting the shaft, then you haven’t been paying attention:
Check out this interview with Morgan Spurlock creator of “Supersize Me”:
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:67290
Take note of the part where he talks about how corporations have purposefully malnourished kids when it means they can get a bigger profit. And why not? The sole group that ever holds them to account are shareholders–and the only question they ever ask is “What’s my stock price at today?” It is utterly illogical for an institution who’s highest priority is to educate, to assume that a corporation they make deals with will share that priority.
The last paragraph in which you make the suggestion that liberty and justice should be for sale simply because other things happen to be for sale troubles me the most. Perhaps you don’t remember how the original pledge reads: “…with liberty and justice for ALL”. I was under the impression that “for all” meant just that–for everyone regardless of wealth.
August 25th, 2004 at 10:08 pm
Maybe the RIAA does indeed provide a service. Kind of like the old Mafia “Protection Service” in which business owners could choose to pay up, and get protection from arson, robbery, and a host of other financial losses.
The protection racket lives on.
August 29th, 2004 at 6:56 am
The only thing the RIAA and MPAA are doing is ticking people off .. and when the general American public eventually figure it out and come together as a unifed force then all hell will break loose .. and I for one will be happy when it happens.
They can’t stop technology .. it’s already here and the only thing they’re doing is causing a p2p technology innovation by forcing the p2p companies to outwit the Big Four (and doing a decent job I might add).
September 16th, 2004 at 7:07 pm
I’ve read somewhere that there was a study performed that tried to mitigate the issues that P2P brings with it. The biggest being the lack of money making its way to the artists. After the study was concluded, the obvious message was that P2P will not die and another idea with dealing with it needs to be persued (sort of like drugs and prostitution, but that’s a another story). Anyway, the recommendation was that a users ISP would charge a nominal amount of money ( I think they were saying $5 a month) and that money would go directly into a pot of money to pay out artists. This models the RADIO industry where the station pays money to SOCAN, ASCAP, etc.. they sample radio play and pay artists based on statistics. Any user that pays the $5 a month will be free to use ANY P2P of choice and download as much as they want. Someone or some process will perform the statistical anaylsis (this is already happening) and pay the artists accordingly. The figures I saw were revenue generation of $3Billion a year. From nothing now to $3billion. This makes a lot of sense and I think is the way the internet community NEEDS to go and users NEEDS to push. For the price of 4-5 CDs today, you get as many as you want. The problem that the Big FOUR and whoever are encountering is that they can’t sue everyone. When you shut down one P2P service another 3 pop up. The bigger issue is that the record companies will spend more money litigating than they can actually recover. Its a losing game on either side. This situation is just like when Radio first came out and the record comapines “sued them all”. Eventually they realised its a losing war and they needed to take another measure to collect money for their artists. Now, every time a song is played on the radio, the artist gets 25 cents and the songwriter gets 25 cents. So basically doing this on P2P is where I think we need to go. I’m not sure what portion of the $5 would go to the record company, but as far as I am concerned, the message the record companies are giving is that P2P is infringing on the artist. So let them back their words up and get their artists money from an extremely viable distribution medium. I’m an artist and would gladly pay $60 a year to be able to support other artists and in turn have myself supported. Pretty simple solution. Thoughts?
Has anyone else heard of this study and proposal and know where it stands?
May 20th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Sessenbrenner is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He is a member of the House of Representatives, not the Senate.