RIAA Says No Mystery In Rash of College Complaints

Doug Lederman writes "As colleges receive exploding numbers of complaints from recording companies about alleged illegal downloading of music files, theories abound about whether the industry is changing its criteria, aggressively targeting users who merely make downloaded music available to others rather than actual infringers. But after weeks of silence, the president of the RIAA says No: Better technology, he asserts, is merely resulting in better enforcement."

In other words...

RIAA: *Jedi hand wave* Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

What a colassal house of cards the RIAA has built for itself. They are doing everything BUT look at the core reasons why people are buying fewer and fewer CD's. It's got far less to do with having to pay for it than it does with the overall quality of their pap...I mean products.

Re:In other words...

No. People still listen to it. Whether or not they consider it good enough to warrant purchasing is the real question.

Re:In other words...

What a colassal house of cards the RIAA has built for itself. They are doing everything BUT look at the core reasons why people are buying fewer and fewer CD's.

Of course they think everyone is stealing music. When you try to understand the mindset of someone else the first thing you do is look at yourself. RIAA execs think that people are stealing music because they're cheap bastards and it's free, because they know that would be their own motivation if they were in the consumer's shoes.

Did you ever notice that the people who are paranoid that they'll get screwed over are often the same people who screw over others every chance they get?

Re:In other words...

I didn't say people downloaded because it was crap. I said fewer people are buying entire CD's when 90% of said CD is crap and maybe has one or two good songs.

Of course that is subjective. Also, I have never downloaded music 'illegally' so I'm not one for making any apologies for that behavior. I want to see Fair Use and Copyright law changed, but in the meantime I respect the current legal framework. I've been *very* vocal with my local Congresscritter on this subject among others.

Re:In other words...

I didn't say people downloaded because it was crap. I said fewer people are buying entire CD's when 90% of said CD is crap and maybe has one or two good songs.

When was this not true? I recall the 80s fondly, but man that decade spawned some seriously shitty music. Really bad soft rock, appalling synthesized junk, hair metal. Yech. But people bought it because they liked it well enough. Need to come up with a better reason than quality for why people aren't buying.

From what I can tell, there's a couple reasons: 1) people can buy tracks now. That's a fully legal reason why the record companies lose money. 2) There hasn't been a change in the dominant format now for what, 15 years? It's been a while since people bought their music twice. That made the record companies a lot of money. And 3)...piracy. It's really hard to argue that there's not a significant number of people who aren't buying music that they otherwise would have bought because it's now free. Sure, it's easy to rationalize - costs too much, crappy, whatever. But the end result is, if it's that bad then don't listen to it.

Of course that is subjective. Also, I have never downloaded music 'illegally' so I'm not one for making any apologies for that behavior. I want to see Fair Use and Copyright law changed, but in the meantime I respect the current legal framework. I've been *very* vocal with my local Congresscritter on this subject among others.

That, in my eyes, gives you a great amount of credibility. I think too many people use banners like copyright, and so on to justify illegal behavior. Calling the Congressrats is a great way to do it.

I do think there is room for civil disobediance here - go download music that *would* have passed into public domain before the Bono act was passed. But downloading new music while claiming evils of copyright - which many people are doing - doesn't work.

Re:In other words...

Try to keep in mind, veganboyjosh, it's not quite like people stealing pizzas from you. Rather, it's akin to you owning a bookstore and people coming in, copying the books, and then leaving. You lose nothing, but gain nothing either.

I'm not making a point to side either way at this point, just to point out this inconsistency.

Re:In other words...

Revenue for What desperate group? The record companies? The mid-level managers within those companies?

(shrug)

I steal music. I'm a thief taking other people's labor (they produce; I don't pay their wages). I freely admit that, and the reason I do it is because I don't want to pay $10-15 to buy a CD that contains just one good song. (Nor do I want to pay $1 to get compressed/lossy-sounding AAC files.) So I steal to get what I want.

If the artist is exceptionally good, or releases a greatest hits album that collects 5-6 albums in one space, THEN I will buy the thing because it's worthwhile. I've got a whole bookshelf filled with greatest hits albums.

Maybe RIAA should focus more on providing WHAT I WANT,
rather than beating me over the head with lawsuits.
i.e. RIAA should try better customer service.

Re:In other words...

I don't like 99 per cent of the food at McDonalds. Does that mean that I get to waltz in and steal an Egg McMuffin because that's what I like and not everything on their menu is an Egg McMuffin, so to punish them I steal and they get NO money, not even for the stuff I do like?

I don't like the Recording Industries' lawsuits or DRM or behavior in general but it's people like you, who openly admit that they are "stealing", that make everyone on this side of the fence look bad.

Re:In other words...

I don't agree with the GP, stealing is bad however you justify it, but your anaology is weak... if you walked into a McDonalds, bought an Egg McMuffan, and had to pay $20 for it plus get 6 additional cheeseburgers for it THEN your anaology might hold.

Now that they're coming out with DRM-free music at a pretty good bit rate, I'm all for it. I don't want to buy music that will die because some company decided to cancel their DRM system (see Microsoft)

Re:In other words...

I'm so tired of hearing this crap argument, first a physical product takes physical goods AND labor to reproduce. Music takes a negligible amount of labor to reproduce in digital formats. A CD, Cassette, 8track, ect... are all physical goods and you must pay to create them in addition to paying the artist/label. Digitally reproduced media should be priced accordingly, the music industry is just pricing it the same even though they have less costs to distribute the digital product. Some may not agree with me on this last part but I do think that if a song was $0.10 or $0.25 they would sell many many more songs and it would no longer be worth wile to download illegally when you could just buy the song correctly tagged in the formate/quality you want and be DRM free. The labels could save at least hundreds of thousands of dollars downsizing their legal department and getting rid of any CD stamping plants/contracts they may have. Music "collections" could also be sold, say $50.00 for every Beatles song ever written, bam one download and you have em all in your format/quality of choice. I really do think allofmp3.com has/had the right idea, they just need some more solid licensing.

Re:In other words...

This is a bad analogy. Stealing a tangible good and stealing an arrangement of electrons are two different things. How about:

You like McMuffins, but McDonalds only sells them in 12 packs and they won't let you split the cost among friends. Anyone who is caught splitting the cost of a McTwelvePack will be prosecuted. "This is ridiculous" you squeal, "MickeyDees can't tell me how to enjoy my McMackins!" You and your friends decide that buying one McTwelvePack each is ridiculous and is not going to happen - so you either resolve to not buy McMuffins at all or you set up an illegal breakfast sharing ring which will fleece McDonalds out of many potential dollars.

I know this seems like a truly outlandish analogy, but is it really? The GP says he enjoys a product and is willing to pay money for the product, but it is mostly sold in a format that he can't tolerate. Hence, he is left with the option to not buy the product or steal it. I am no psychologist, but it seems like human nature to me.

Re:In other words...

I am sure the RIAA sees me as a thief as well.

I purchase music two ways. One is from independent artists. In which case, the artist gets 100% of the proceeds.

The other, is at the Good Will or other used store. Where I "stick it to the man". No money goes to the record companies.

I call BS.

It's not better technology, it's better targeting. College students are 'soft targets'. They have limited funds, hence they are more liable to share music and less likely to be able to fight back. The RIAA doesn't want to try and extort from someone capable of fighting back, you know.

Re:I call BS.

That's a good theory, but it has some flaws. For example, they're still going after universities with good law schools as well as ivy league schools.

The law schools have a chance to fight back and have the resources to put up a decent struggle. And many students attending law schools have parents with money and/or connections.

I'm not saying those 2 scenarios invalidate your theory, but something to think about.

Re:I call BS.

It's not better technology, it's better targeting. College students are 'soft targets'. They have limited funds, hence they are more liable to share music and less likely to be able to fight back. The RIAA doesn't want to try and extort from someone capable of fighting back, you know.

Naaah, it's because that's the age group that's downloading most of what's out there. Most of us old foggies with such an inclination have already either bought and/or downloaded all the music they want. The stuff they have coming out today is crap. If they wanted to sell music, they should have been marketing to baby-boomers with disposable income (and technically, probably less aware of how to find and download the illegal stuff) instead of poor college students!

Now, get off my lawn!

Technology that is helping catch more criminals

Previous technology: Flip a coin. Heads -> you are innocent.

New_and_Improved technology: Throw a die. 1 -> you are innocent.

The future?

So how long before they target kindergartens? Those little bastards aren't buying any CD's, clearly they're stealing them!

Tagged: yeahriht

This isn't about technology. The RIAA's aggresive war against users isn't based on good or bad technology. It's just a bunch of lies.

* An IP address can't be used to pinpoint a user, and that's a FACT. What does that have to do with better technology?
* The companies they hired to do their investigations weren't authorized by the government. That's ILLEGAL. What does that have to do with better technology?

No Mystery

Principal Skinner: There's no mystery about what happened to Groundskeeper Willy. Why, he simply disappeared. Now let's have no more questions about this bizarre coverup.

"Better technology"

"Better technology," any of us with a brain asserts, "is merely resulting in better clients. Next up: IP obfuscation"

morons

9 thousand lawyers versus 90 million technologically savvy, music hungry, poor teenagers

place your wagers

you lose, morons

Not better technology, just a wider net

Really, the RIAA is just casting a wider net. By putting out more notices:

A) They are more likely to deter casual, nontechnical users who get them, most of whom will either stop or reduce their P2P use.
B) They are more likely to scare others; e.x. "Yo, did you hear? Joe Smith got a warning about music downloading!".
C) Many colleges and ISPs (Dartmouth and Optimum Online, at least) will often reduce the speed of account holders who have been the target of DCMA letters.
D) For settlement offers, the wider the net, the more fish you catch. If people put up an ounce of resistance, just drop the extortion attempt and move on to the next guy.

Not really that surprising. The technology hasn't improved, the RIAA is just sending out more letters.

Re:Missed one;

Really, the RIAA is just casting a wider net. By putting out more notices:

E) Students move from a visable P-P application back to secure sneaker-net trading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet [wikipedia.org]

Instead of a dribble of songs from slow university connections, a few DVD's, loaded iPods, and USB external hard drives get lent outside of trackable channels.

For my middle school kids, it's the norm. They have Comcast and no P-P software. It's all sneaker net and iPods. I'm suprised the RIAA isn't bringing up the RIO lawsuit again and try to fight iPods and other external hard drives as massive tools of infringement. After all, in their book, tools for making availiable is a crime.

What's interesting ...

...is the number of false positives that are popping up.

I'm responsible for DMCA notices at my campus, and after a 1.5 year lull without a single one, I've received over 2 dozen, none of which are attributable to any IP given out by our DHCP server. One IP was a terminal server with no access to the internet.

(I'm posting anonymously because I don't like the spotlight. Talk to any college staff member and you'll get similar comments about this recent flurry of notices.)

Re:What's interesting ...

I hope your response to the RIAA is something along the lines of:

We have received your DMCA notices. None are attributable to IP addresses given out by our DHCP server. One is attributed to a terminal server with no internet access. Thus, we will be taking no action other than to file these notices. Should we receive future notices which may be attributed to an IP address assigned by our DHCP server and thus one of our students, we will pass along the DMCA notice as well as a record of all filed and incorrect DMCA notices we have received so that the student in question can be made fully aware of the accuracy of your efforts should they wish to formulate a legal defense.

Let the RIAA know that their machinegun approach to this will be used against them when it comes time to prosecute. I doubt they'll slow down but the increasingly large file of haphazard DMCA notices will eventually show that they are filing frivolous lawsuits.

MediaSentry - "contractor" or "investigator"

Note that the RIAA is no longer referring to MediaSentry as its "investigator", instead referring to it as a "contractor" or a "vendor". I wonder if they think that will make their legal problems [blogspot.com] go away.