RIAA Campaign Against Students Hits Stormier Seas 296
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It's been astutely observed that the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign against "John Doe" college students seems to have run into much stormier waters than its campaign against regular folks. Discovery motions were thrown out by the judges in cases involving the University of New Mexico and the College of William and Mary, and motions to quash have been made by students at Boston University, Oklahoma State University, and the University of South Florida. The RIAA might find it particularly troubling that the students are coming in armed with substantial expert witness declarations attacking the entire underpinning of the RIAA's case, that the students are finding each other and banding together, and that the Chairman of Boston University's Computer Science Department went to bat — as an expert witness — for the BU students."
Now there's education (Score:5, Insightful)
good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Students... now... these are groups of young people with common interests and copious amounts of free time, who are looking for worthy causes to fight that can define their generation, and have much less to lose as they don't have mortgages, families, and savings. Except for lawyers, you couldn't target a worse group of people. Trying to come down harder on them will make them come together more and strengthen their resolve to stamp out this persecution, a perceived abuse of their civil and human rights.
Good. It's time the RIAA got it's ass kicked and it's especially humbling that it's students doing it - probably the worst offenders on the RIAA hitlist.
They might have targetted lawyers too (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I'd imagine that any university would at least have a legal department, or a contract with some lawyer firm, or whatever. They may not be of the caliber of IBM, whose lawyers have been said to be like the Nazgul or darken the skies, but they have or can afford someone who knows whether a "bend over and give us your money and a self-incriminating confession" letter actually has any legal basis or not.
Basically it's not just that students are connected, it's that it only takes one university to feel targeted as an organization, to be a lot more organized in fighting back. When you target isolated persons or even some (incompetently-led) tiny companies, you can bully them around or pull a "stand and deliver" and scare them into actually giving you their money. When you target someone with lawyers, they'll ask those first.
2. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the universities actually had law one of the majors. So they'd have a lot of people whose whole job there is to learn about that kind of stuff, and, worse yet, some whose job is to teach it.
And the former can go ask the latter. I mean, it's not like Jane Grandma who'll be like "omg, where will I find a good lawyer, and can I possibly afford one?" If you have someone teaching you law courses, it just begs to go ask him about law.
3. Student connections run wider than just that campus. Even if you target a pure technical university, some of those students will be the son/daughter of a lawyer (Bill Gates was the son of a wealthy lawyer, for example), some will be dating a cute law student because those universities have more women, etc.
Basically, individual John Doe lawsuits/law-threats can be carefully targeted against people who statistically should be more likely to be defenseless. If your list of IPs includes one for the head of a famous law firm, you'd have to be a dolt to send him a pseudo-legal nastygram. But when you take a shotgun approach among such a big group as a university, you may well end up targeting the son of that same lawyer.
in defense of the RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
ha!
we have LAWYERS
lots and lots of LAWYERS
platoons of them!
fact: there is no problem we the RIAA have faced that couldn't be solved just by throwing LAWYERS at it. a problem? sue someone! PROBLEM SOLVED! don't you people get it?
in fact, the entirety of human technological progress, in the form of the internet ruining our business model, means nothing. we can stop progress itself by just suing people
sue! sue! sue! there: it's all gold and honey again, no more problems
don't you silly college students get it yet?
You forgot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You forgot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You forgot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, as a Wisconsin alumnus, I'd just observe that WARF needs a steady supply of those students (especially the graduate students) to work for poverty wages on all those research projects that they so cheerfully describe to the readers of their literature. So it's not surprising that they'd take well-publicized actio
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So do we (Score:5, Insightful)
They're also academic in their understanding of the law, which means that given the shaky ground RIAA lawsuits are standing on, they are unlikely to win.
Re:So do we (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Soylent green?
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we will soon see the day when CD players will go the way of tape decks, and all of your music will be transmitted wirelessly from your online music accounts to your home computer, your portable music player, and your car stereo.
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But a government should work for the good of the country and the people whom it represent.
If a politician or a party receives compensations for working for the good of a corporation, and in doing this is neglecting the people or the overall good of the country, they should be voted into the marginals of political influence.
Or, if the compensations has been in the form
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the supreme law in the US is the Constitution, which says:
Congress shall have power
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
So if they vote for copyright or patent laws that interfere with scientific or artistic progress, they are clearly doing something illegal, and they should be prosecuted for it. Taking
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is only a wasted vote if everyone else thinks it's a waste.
The only reason why people do this is because everyone else is doing it.
If everyone that only votes for one of the Dragons because "otherwise it's a waste" actually started to vote for a party or candidate that they actually thought would represent their interest, the two Dragons might not have such a overwhelming majority anymore.
I'd say that not voting for what the rulers say you should vote for is good, if you do
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh please! We all expected big changes after getting rid of Nixon. What we got was a whole lot of nothing. Once the iPod generation gets a taste of that power, they will just become like the rest already have. What's that saying? "A republican is just a democrat with money." You believe that after 20,000 years, this is the epiphany? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you do realize how useless that is, right? Most of them have tried drugs and manged to go on to serve in public office, showing them to be harmless, yet continue to vote to make them even more illegal. Legislators base votes off money and getting re-elected, and not personal experience. If you aren't a sell-out, what are you doing in p
out of date marketing methods (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:out of date marketing methods (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like DRM because of all the compatibility issues and ease of use issues, but if it stops people from pirating (it doesn't, really), then it may be worth it.
Also, that's THEIR decision to make. They own the rights to distribute the content. It isn't my decision, it isn't your decision. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I primarily buy music on iTunes that is in iTunes Plus (DRM free 256kbps), thereby saying that yes, I like DRM free music. But I don't pirate music just because it has DRM and I'm opposed to DRM. I'll buy the CD in that case.
Re:out of date marketing methods (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM violates the social contract that allows them to control distribution of creative works.
DRM should void any copyright protection.
If the Librarian of Congress can't archive it, then the FBI shouldn't be used to prosecute those that pirate the work and the US Courts should not be used by corporations to sue those that the FBI won't prosecute.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't play guitar, you have no place in the equation.
People and organizations can assert their rights all they want. I won't conform to them.
If I could do so without risk, I would set about having them burned at the stake for daring to make the attempt, starting this very moment.
If any group ever sticks their nose into what I'm doing and try to enforce their so called rights with enough effectiveness to screw up what I've got going on here i
Re: (Score:2)
Same goes for software released with copy protection. How can it enter the public domain if there is no way to copy it?
Re: (Score:2)
Trick is: DRM-free music obviates everything that the labels provide to musicians.
The manufacturing, the distribution, the guaranteed shelf-space, etc.
If swapping DRM-free music became the legal, accepted industry standard - they'd be cut out of the loop. They'd die.
Why do you think they're fighting so hard?
Guess University of Washington is one .. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a bad move (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps a bad move (Score:5, Interesting)
From a technological evidence stand point, the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on. Us techies have known that for a while. But, I think it's the first group to really have the confidence to stand up, the know how to contradict and the desire to stick it to them.
If this group can keep banding together, I think the RIAA's legal tactics may hit a sudden and disastrous roadblock.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA Notices (Score:3, Funny)
We laughed our asses off. If they took us to court we could do all sorts of things from claiming to have an unsecured wireless network to bringing up ip spoofing, to... you name it.
Prove I did it.
Well we have these logs with an IP address...
Yeah, but prove I did it.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, most people will work around a students schedule. A student will not respond to threats that his or her family is going starve, or they will contact his or her boss and get him fired, or that he or she will have a ruined credit rating and never buy a house.
OF course, it could just be that most college
Re:Perhaps a bad move (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's a fair bet that they actually understand how the Internet works, or at least have access to people who do, which ultimately is probably the thing that the MAFIAA should fear more than anything else.
And following that observation, it's never been clear to me whether the MAFIAA purposely hire clueless "experts" for deposition or whether they honestly don't understand the technology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ents (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point, decent people get riled up over injustice and finally do something about it. These RIAA lawyers have been bullying pre-schoolers long enough. "I'm telling my big brother" is coming home to them.
Use the market RIAA. Learn to compete. Give up on old technology and old ways of distributing music. Nobody wants to buy your 5 cent disk with 9 bad songs for highway robbery prices just to listen to one song you should allow to be downloaded at a cheap enough rate so that folks will stop bothering to pirate (not steal; remember, pirates are simply a form of entrepeneurs).
I wish it was true (Score:2)
-Right of resale? Ignore it and litigate
-Personal use freedoms? Ignore them and litigate.
It's a "risk premium" attached to entertainment media. The only way to get the discount is to cede control of your media. A pejorative term for "risk premium" is a "terrorism tax."
Sadly, righteous indignation is the only thing that I see in these discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates are just entrepreneurs? Are you talking about the kind of pirate who steals, rapes and murders, or the kind that just steals???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The injustice here isn't RIAA or lawsuits. The problem is that media consolidation has lead to a point where the amount of control is vested in a vanishingly small number of people.
If there were dozens of record labels they would never be able to agree on a common font let alone to all band together to sue customers.
It is unlikely that a large group could co-ordinate their interests enough to buy off a dog catcher let alone con
From a link in the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
And so continues the witch-hunt for dear ol' 162.83.177.207.
I hope the new generation of musicians refuse to sign record labels with major companies. Considering how powerful a home studio can now be, it's a whole lot more feasible than it was 30 years ago..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From a link in the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, it's songs again that rule. The ease of obtaining (legally or illegally) single songs means the death of the album as a major profit center. The fact is that Phil Spector was right when he called the album "two hits and ten pieces of junk". The vast majority of long play vinyl and CDs are populated by junk. Is there some reason that people like Britney Spears or Madonna have to release twelve song collections? Let's face it, in the vast jungle of albums out there since the LP took off in the late 1950s, there are perhaps a few dozen genuine masterpieces in any given genre of music.
I think the smart artists and studios will realize that there is a golden opportunity here to shed the 800 lb. gorilla of the record company and its distribution networks. For decades, these guys have been robbing artists blind, while they made untold millions. That's okay for the upper echelon of artists like U2 or the Beach Boys, whose volume of sales is such that even a fraction means big bucks. But there's all those middle tier and Indie guys who don't sell that number, and for them, being able to direct sell, or hell, even just give away the music and make their money off of the gigs and the merchandising that this new era could mean prosperity.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And radio stations and critics would rather deal with an album at a time instead of a single every few weeks. It could b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been wating for this to happen, but it has not yet. Perhaps there are contractual relationships and copyright ownership issues that prevents it.
However, imagine a scenario where an established band dumps the traditional publishers and elect
Re:From a link in the article... (Score:4, Interesting)
LPs are probably one of the biggest rip-offs in recording history. There's some argument for them as far as classical pieces or extended jazz pieces and the like. But come on, for every Dark Side of the Moon out there, there are hundreds of piles of crap with maybe one or two redeeming songs to be found.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, man. Who'll be left to sort out the brown M&M's?
;-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, there has been a *very* strong swing toward making cohesive albums in the past few years (to the degree that some artists are cutting songs from albums and releasing them as b-sides).
To the same effect, it's perfectly reasonable to release a 40-minute album, or even just an EP, as long as that limited selection is good. Voxtrot [wikipedia.org] comes to mind as being a current band with several fantastic EPs
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, a fellow musician! Greetings from an old bluesman! My band is going somewhat the same route. What we've decided to do is take advantage of the offer of assistance (for about $1500 for a mastered CD..about half what he normally charges
Does this have broader implications? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does this have broader implications? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The police? But what if the police don't give a rat's ass if someone is downloading MP3s, because there are real crimes being committed? (By real crimes, I mean black people driving cars, of course.)
But seriously, this is akin to what just happened in Germany, with the high court saying "sorry, but we can't be bothered with the petty offense of MP3 downloaders. Find another stooge."
No, I don't think the polic
Re:Does this have broader implications? (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely.
Defeating the RIAA != Supporting Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the RIAA is that it has very questionable practices in regards to its sending subpeona's and when it sues people not that piracy is right.
The problem is that it believes itself to be a police force with powers to investigate and aprehend criminals. It does not.
However that does not mean that piracy is ok. It only means that evil corporations are evil. While you may argue that information wants to be free and copyrights are badly flawed that does not mean your piracy is not against the law. It's the practice of the RIAA that are unlawful not its intent.
Re: (Score:2)
B) Piracy's morality or imorality is still being debated. Many people think it's wrong because of the potential to harm the income of the artists, but many people also think purchasing music legitimately is immoral because it powers a corrupt system, i.e. the RIAA. And most people (like me) are somewhere in between.
I'm going to get crucified, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I'm sure most people have music that isn't theirs on their computer. But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people. I think that people shouldn't be crucified for having some songs that aren't theirs on their systems, if they also buy plenty of music. But if you never or almost never buy music, and your entire collection is pirated, then by all means, the RIAA should go after you.
I oppose the RIAA on privacy grounds, and because the logic used (downloading is NOT piracy, if you own it, I believe), but if peoples attitudes really now is that they should pirate rather than buy, then I think the RIAA is between a rock and a hard place, and they can't simply ignore that.
And please, keep the arguments about RIAA music being not worth the money out of this - if you don't think it's worth the money, then you don't have a right to have it. You've made that choice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime.
It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition. It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped. It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay t
Re:You aren't wrong, but it depends (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people.
You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime. It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition.
Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.
It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped.
Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.
It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs.
This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not a life necessity.
It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?).
I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music.
It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire.
Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that.
Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music?
Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?
As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention....
I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact theyre allowed to ruin peoples lives over some songs is crazy, it goes against common sense and will never be accepted no matter what laws they buy.
Ill gladly support musicians via concerts or even taxes, theres no way Im supporting all the evil crap around them tho.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Moreover, there are so many wonderful low cost sources of unusual hard-to-find music these days that I really no longer buy into the it's-too-hard-to-find-so-I-must-pirate argument. Certainly, the music by the garage band fo
Re: (Score:2)
I "steal" music/videos/software because my government charges a tax on blank media that they give to someone because said media could be used to "steal" stuff. So I'm paying for something, thus I download as much as possible to get my money's worth.
Again, to those who insist on saying "it's a levy, not a tax", I say "eat shit".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually finding what you're looking for on either bittorrent sites or gnutella & co is a pain. I'll be damned if 95% of people with classical music share any Bach that isn't BVW 147, 565, or 582. As a matter of fact, I've accumulated about a dozen different playings of "Ode to Joy." Other than those and one of the Brandenburg concertos, good luck - you're
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can cry me a river. I have as much sorrow for the RIAA as I have sorrow for the Catholic Church's monopoly on bible printing being broken by new technology. And sure, the Church fought that as well. They couldn't
Reading Your Blog (Score:2)
Re:Reading Your Blog (Score:4, Interesting)
History lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant."
Re:History lesson (Score:5, Informative)
RIAA's then-prez Rosen got into a Debate with The Oxford Union and she got a serious shellacking. This was 2002.
"The Oxford Union debated the proposition that "the free music mentality is a threat to the future of music" (via The Reg and NTK). Final scores: 72 ayes, 256 noes. A pretty resounding defeat. The report notes that a few of the more memorable bits of the debate include Hilary Rosen lying about copy-protected CDs in the US (or at the very least being deliberately ingenuous about it), Rosen also getting shocked at how many people said that they do buy music because of filesharing, and a few unsupported assertions about the importance of the music industry which no-one was allowed to contest. For more background on this debate, see the Campaign for Digital Rights."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/26/2
Do ya think they learned from that?
Naw.
The Internet Changes Everything (Score:5, Interesting)
In the SCO versus IBM + The Entire Linux Community, Groklaw provided a full-time forum for commentary and suggestions, and Slashdot covered the subject often. Among all the First Posts and other chaff must have been more than a few nuggets of wisdom.
In the fight of The RIAA versus The Entire Civilized World, this is taken yet another step further. While IBM was as technically savvy as its opponent, lawyers (apologies to Ray), Judges (no apologies to too many of them still, but some are getting it finally), and most users aren't very knowledgeable about computers, software, the Internet, the law, and what it all means. Neither is the RIAA knowledgeable in these areas, as they are too often making very evident.
Because of widespread interest in the subject, along with a general dislike of big business in general, there is a collaboration here the likes of which couldn't have ever happened even a few short years ago. The RIAA has thousands more enemies than they've yet sued, all of whom are willing to contribute what bit of knowledge they have to bring that lying (we're only doing this for the poor starving artists) colossus down. And because of their identical, boilerplate cases, they only have to lose on one point to lose them all! And its the Internet that's making all this possible. People communicate in ways they never could before.
Students, among other things, also have a lot of time on their hands, and a great ire when they think they've been wronged. That's a volatile mix that the RIAA may soon wish they'd left alone. Suing grandmothers (unless it happens to be Neville Longbottom's Gram) is safer than motivated students just looking for the next cause celeb.
All in all, I'd say the RIAA has made yet another major misstep. Maybe this will be their last one, since if successful, the students will provide the roadmap to kill all of these cases where they should be killed -- at the illegal, unethical, ex parte stage. If so, the world will be a better place for you and me (lyric used under Fair Use provisions).
They're going after the wrong crowd... (Score:5, Interesting)
Students banding together (Score:2)
They weren't doing so before? I don't know about the US, I presume it's fairly similar to AUS. We call them student unions, is it really any surprise, that students would organise in such a manner to look out for their interests?
Suing students has never been a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
-smart. Well, there are those and those, but usually, they got more brains than your average Joe.
-political. Not as much as they used to be, and certainly not "party political" anymore, but they do have agendas they believe in.
-young and thus enthusiastic. They didn't yet grow up into "meh, what can I do?" apathetics.
-free. Yes, there IS stress towards the end of a term, but hey, it's August! Many students still enjoy holidays, and few if any have papers due soon. They got spare time on their hands.
If you look around the world, you'll notice that pretty much every revolution, from political to social, contained students as a key element. Many social revolutions of the 60s have been driven by students, in Germany, in France, in the US.
Now, you're suing smart people who believe strongly in their freedom and their rights and do care about it, with plenty of spare time to defend themselves. Could it be that this wasn't the smartest idea?
Yay for BU and (Score:2)
It is apparent that BU CS department is not a paid underdog to megacorps, and thats an indicator that real CS is very probably being taught there.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, and... (Score:2)
Many universities won't fight very hard (Score:3, Interesting)
To those of you who think our university should provide free and unfettered access so students can do anything they want might want to consider how that activity infringes on other educational and business activities of the institution. Those who want to collect and or otherwise make available MP3s are welcome to do so at their personal expense on their home networks. To date, nobody has come forward attempting to justify a bona fide educational need for collecting or sharing MP3s, et al.
*Major* (pun intended) miscalculation (Score:4, Funny)
Has anyone at the RIAA been to a University? LOL.
They should have stuck to twelve-year-old girls and their terrified parents. They're going to get their asses handed to them on any campus, especially private schools. Anyone who can afford a private school education is likely to be able to afford one hell of a defense.
--
Toro
Re: (Score:2)
Scoob (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your tears are like milk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to whine and try to sell the idea that the monopolization and capitalization of culture and education is in everyone's best
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You could ask Google. (Score:4, Informative)
* Simply having files containing potentially unauthorized copies of music is not a violation: the entity distributing the music is responsible for any copyright violations.
* That the RIAA has not shown that the defendants were aware they they were even potentially distributing the files.
* The only distribution that the RIAA has shown to have been performed by the defendants was authorized by the RIAA and therefore wasn't a copyright violation.
This is actually pretty solid, and while of course there are several things the RIAA can do to cover these gaping holes in their approach there's not much they can do about the current case if these arguments prevail.
Re:And in the end... (Score:4, Insightful)
The industry was well-paid long before Napster came along, is still well-paid (way past the point of obscenity) and will continue to be well-paid for the foreseeable future. Cash flow, as such, is not the problem here so far as the music studios are concerned, in spite of their tired old "{this or that technology} will destroy the industry!" mantra. God, I am so sick of these self-serving bastards and their extreme view of their own importance to society.
They're irritated that they've lost some control of distribution, and are upset because sales growth isn't what it once was. The music business is still strong: there are many factors that have influenced their overall profitability, of which downloading is only one, and by no means the most significant. Depending upon which study you believe, their current financial condition may very well have been bolstered by illegal downloading. Way to go team!
Furthermore, your presumption that artists aren't making any money due to people downloading songs from P2P is a. wrong and b. forgetful of the simple fact that they've never been paid properly. The studios have been ripping off their artists since, well
As for the Feds monitoring every connection in the United States
Re: (Score:2)