RIAA To College Students: Prepare To Be Sued

[Ignacio Upton]

RIAA To College Students: Prepare To Be Sued
Organization Says It Will Get Tough On Piracy

(AP) The recording industry said Wednesday it was amplifying its legal offensive against online piracy on college campuses by sending hundreds of letters warning students they will be sued if they don't accept settlement offers.

The Recording Industry Association of America said it intended to sue more students and others on campuses in the next three months than it has in the past three years.

The trade group said it would send 400 letters a month to computer users suspected of copyright infringement.

The letters targeted students at Arizona State University; Marshall University; North Carolina State University; North Dakota State University; Northern Illinois University; Ohio University; Syracuse University; University of Massachusetts, Amherst; University of Nebraska, Lincoln; University of South Florida; University of Southern California; University of Tennessee, Knoxville; and University of Texas, Austin.

http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_059184432.html

[WindRavenX]

1. blow me, RIAA

Assholes.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

2. I wonder why those universities?

:shrug:

[Ignacio Upton]

3. Does this action violate student privacy laws?

According to this Wired article on the same story (I found the CBS story first on Google News, so I posted it first) there is the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, which protects the privacy of student records.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72834-0.html?tw=wn_index_4

[Xithras]

37. No

The lawsuits are first filed as "Doe" suits against an anonymous IP address. Once the suit is filed, the RIAA can ask a judge to subpoena the records. A judges subpoena overrides FERPA.

A student could sue their school if the school simply turned the records over on request, but the school and student have no defense if the RIAA goes to a judge first.

[brentspeak]

30. RIAA is smart enough to avoid suing students at places like Harvard, Princeton, Yale

Because, unlike their counterparts at many of the schools targeted (except for maybe Syracuse and USC), a lot of those "elite" college students do have the financial resources to fight a lawsuit.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. I believe that they are all large schools

One of their objectives is likely to get the universities to take some action.

[crikkett]

39. I wonder what would happen if students organized a boycott

against the publishers and artists represented by the RIAA?

A very very loud and sweeping and unified boycott. With picketing. For example Sony also sells audio equipment. So boycott that too.

Hey Kids! Get together so you can use your numbers to negotiate with these suits, or continue to be raped by them.

[madrchsod]

4. maybe if they knew how to run their business they

would make enough money not to worry about downloads..17 dollar cd`s that should`t be over 10..

[Ignacio Upton]

5. And don't forget putting DRM on online music

Also, the "legitimate" services they offer such a Ruckus won't allow you to put you music on your mp3 player unless you pay them. That plus the DRM is what will continue to give college students the incentive to download. If the RIAA really wants to make money with online file-sharing going on, they should enter into a collective licensing program with ISPs and universities. Under such a program, ISPs and universities would charge a monthly (or semester) fee...say $5 or $10 per month for the right to file share music. It would preserve the current file sharing infrastructure AND compensate the artists. And while the labels would make less in revenue, they would make more in pure profit because they wouldn't have to deal with middle men such as music stores or shipping costs. The licensing model already exists for broadcast radio and for cable. Why not implement a licensing model?

[Yavin4]

11. I Agree With Your Licensing Model

All ISPs should collect a fee for online sharing. Something like $10 a year. The RIAA could put that money in a fund to be shared equally by all copyright holders.

It's impossible to stop online sharing, and it's impossible to sue everyone.

[Ignacio Upton]

13. $10 a year would be nice too

But I'm trying to be more realistic. I think that the RIAA might eventually move towards a collective licensing model once they realize that their lawsuits aren't stopping file sharing growth...but by the time they consider it, it'll probably be 2030 or something like that. They started suing people in 2003, and it's STILL growing. The rate of growth is smaller this time, but that could easily be attributed to the rise of itunes.

Also, if the RIAA doesn't agree to such a licensing scheme, Congress should make it compulsory.

You can read the full proposal on the EFF's site (they were the ones who proposed it):

http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php

[KurtNYC]

24. Seems like Greed

This is another revenue stream for the recording industry. A recent study showed P2P has had no negative effect on music sales.

Likely they are shaking down college students because the RIAA figures students and their families will find a way to pay the fine when other demographics might not be as lucrative.

[Rowdy Church]

6. Not Much Has Changed

As for the hype about this being a new phenom -- well my friends and I were doing that back in the old days as well when we'd cue up the old duel cassette deck and burn a copy of a friend's new music cassette to a blank cassette and share it.

To really show my age we even used to cue up our vinyl and burn it to cassette or even reel-to-reel.

Doesn't sound like much has changed.

[Ignacio Upton]

7. The RIAA had the technology two decades ago (and no 1984 SCOTUS ruling in favor of VCRs)

You and your friend would have been sued for that. They would have done it if they could.

[Rowdy Church]

15. I agree

"You and your friend would have been sued for that. They would have done it if they could."

Yes, I know and I agree that would've if they could've.

I simply meant, when I said, "nothing has changed" ... that people are going to copy music and share it as long as they have the means to do so. While coming up we went from vinyl to cassette to CD now to MP3. We've always found a way to share our collections -- but we also purchased original music even while sharing .. so I do understand that the technological advances have made it vastly easier to do and on a much larger scale and the RIAA is concerned. And rightly so.

But the RIAA needs to pull their collective heads out of their asses because they are bringing alot of this on themselves by not adjusting their profit expectation while adapting a reasonable marketing strategy that takes this fact into consideration. A fact that they cannot litigate away.

I know every time I read another article about the RIAA going after a child, a family or college students for sharing music - it turns me off. I do not support their methodology.

I, for one refuse to purchase any DRM restricted music - at least not until I have the ability to back it up, play it on my computer using whatever software I choose, burn it to a CD for transportability for use in my car or other external devices or upload it to any portable mp3 capable device that I may own.

Suing college students and parents isn't going to solve the underlying concerns of the RIAA -- the sooner they get creative and work to make music affordable and portable and a win-win for consumer and artist alike -- they have a losing hand IMHO.

[Earth_First]

8. College students to RIAA: Fu*k off!

n/t

[Ignacio Upton]

9. ....

:toast: :yourock:

[PittPoliSci]

10. Prepare to eat me, RIAA.

[sakabatou]

12. RIAA, prepare to be ignored

[1monster]

14. I'm confused. How does the RIAA know that someone is sharing music

files or other copyright protected materials?

I have copied some of my private CDs, for example CDs of my son's middle school band and chorus concerts onto my computer to listen to when I'm using the computer.

If I also copied the music CDs that I purchased to listen to while using the computer, but do not share them, can I be suspected of piracy?

Does sending a WAV file through a upload raise red flags (I haven't knowingly sent out copyrighted materials this way)? How?

What puts one at risk of having the RIAA extort large sums of money using the threat of suing for even larger sums of money?

What if the people from whom they attempt to extort are innocent and refuse the settlement. If they are sued and are able to prove their innocence, does the RIAA have to pay their legal bills?

[Ignacio Upton]

17. Because most of these p2p programs automatically upload your music onto them

For example, in using LimeWire, you have the option to upload the songs on your hard drive and share them with other users. This is the principle of file sharing. However, the RIAA catches most of its victims by sending some sort of tracker (I don't know if they pay real people to do this, or if it's some sort of BOT) that looks for people who upload and share the music, and looks at their IP address. They then go to a judge to file a "John Doe" suit to force the ISP to turn over the identity of the person behind the IP address. Viola, you have the threat of a suit. They will make an offer, asking you to pay up for a thousand or several thousand dollars, or they will sue you for much much more. Other programs such as Bit Torrent force you to share.

What I don't understand about their latest tactic against college students, is that don't they usually just turn this over to the judicial affairs departments at universities to handle? Many universities already have penalties for file sharing that include losing your internet access (and that extends CAMPUS-WIDE, because each student receives a "net ID" so he can access computer terminals in places like campus libraries.) They may also be forced to wipe out their hard drive and erase the songs.

As for legal fees...it costs a shit load just to fight them in court, so most people they've sued were forced to settle. However, in one case, a judge did force the RIAA to pay legal fees to a person they sued on the grounds that she was liable for file sharing when she wasn't doing it (it was her daugher.) The RIAA is currently appealing that ruling.

[Rowdy Church]

19. Reasonable Use versus Piracy

The very issues that you raise are at the heart of the debate that is brewing over the use of MP3s and other digital media.

Your use of CDs and other copyrighted material sounds like it falls under *reasonable use*.

When we purchase a software CD, music CD or video DVD - we should have the ability to *back it up* or *make a copy* for our own personal use. This is usually refer'd to as *reasonable use*

It's when you make a copy for the purpose of distributing the material to friends, family or take it upon yourself to make it available indiscriminately to others using a Peer-to-Peer File Sharing software or stamping out copies and reselling them or for that matter even giving them away that puts you into jeopardy.

The individuals that the RIAA is singling out and suing are 9 times out of 10 using a Peer-to-Peer File Sharing software online. The RIAA has software that seeks out these systems and infiltrates them to identify users who are guilty of downloading copyrighted material.

I would recommend that you goto the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and read up on this topic. The EFF is a non-profit organization that was created by technical professionals that watch over legislation and stay on top of these very issues.

I would encourage anyone reading this thread to go check out the EFF and even sign-up for their newsletters and information. They are the ACLU of Technology.

http://www.eff.org/

[Rowdy Church]

20. Fair Use

Actually I should have called it *FAIR USE*

You can read more about this issue at EFF here:

http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/

[Yavin4]

16. Meanwhile, Millions of Copyrighted Video and Audio Lives on YouTube and Their Clones

So will the RIAA sue them as well?

[Ignacio Upton]

18. They aren't suing the people who post the videos...yet

The only instance where this is being done, was when a YouTube user posted an entire 24 episode before it was set to air. Fox was pissed. But since you can't download those clips to your computer, they're just threatening YouTube with lawsuits...or arranging licensing agreements with them. Viacom may have forced them to pull clips related to their shows, but CBS and NBC have signed agreements allowing YouTube to host clips from their content.

[Edweird]

21. RIAA is a dinosaur. It's business model is obsolete. These are its last gasps of desperation.

The RIAA really represents record labels not musicians. Professional musicians don't make shit from record sales, they make it on tour. And from merchandising. As a matter of fact, if the label advances you 100k for an album, and it only sells 3 copies, guess what? You're on the hook for 100k. The record labels make their money off record sales and music rights. When you get done recording that 100k album, you won't even own the rights to the music. So, these people that make it sound like their band is going hungry because of file sharing are full of it. And the RIAA is nothing more than mafia type strong arm operation. The RIAA can bite me.

[stlsaxman]

48. The whole music industry is in upheaval. This from The Guardian-

Record labels lose out as bands become brands in fierce market

New roles are emerging for those closest to artists in a fragmented media world
Owen Gibson and Katie Allen
Monday February 26, 2007

Guardian

The upheaval wrought on the music industry in recent years, of which EMI's latest travails are just the latest manifestation, have inspired a change in bedtime reading among senior executives. Their book of choice is now less likely to be a classic tale of rock industry excess such as Hammer of the Gods, but The Long Tail, a book about how the internet has brought about the death of shared culture.

The book, written by Chris Anderson of Wired magazine, sums up the challenges facing established media groups, including leading record labels: "At this point, the artists don't need the labels any more. The consumers don't need the labels any more and I think the labels, rather than trying to protect what business they have, need to ask themselves what is their relevance."

<snip>

New model

Through the new financial model - dubbed Music Venture Capital Trusts - they claim that artists have more freedom and retain more of their own rights while their management are able to lavish care and attention on all aspects of an artist's career. The artist retains ultimate control, they say, because managers tend to be employed on an annual contract.

"We work for our artists and we answer to our artists. At the end of the day, our artists can turn around and sack us," says Mr Clark. He says he "very nearly came to blows" with EMI over ie Music's determination to sign a global marketing deal with Sony Ericsson for Williams - a marriage that he says has been "incredibly successful". By being able to work with each part of an artist's "basket of rights", he claims to stand a better chance of building a long-term brand than a record label more concerned with short-term returns.

<snip>

complete article at http://business.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329726759-108725,00.html

---------------------------

In todays music industry, as Robert Fripp so deftly puts it-

When the record label makes a mistake, the artist pays.
When the management makes a mistake, the artist pays.
When the artist makes a mistake, the artist pays.

[Occulus]

22. Yes, sue the shit out of your market.

Why don't they do a study and see if $1 singles are a viable market again? Just dump a high quality copy on a card CD and sell them as impulse items at the checkout.

Jesus. If I can come up with a business model to offset unauthorized copying, why can't they?

[Odin2005]

23. Me to RIAA: FUCK YOU!

[crikkett]

40. If you're a student, organize against them.

there's strength in numbers.

[KurtNYC]

25. Harvard Study

A study of file-sharing's effects on music sales says online music trading appears to have had little part in the recent slide in CD sales.

For the study, released Monday, researchers at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina tracked music downloads over 17 weeks in 2002, matching data on file transfers with actual market performance of the songs and albums being downloaded. Even high levels of file-swapping seemed to translate into an effect on album sales that was "statistically indistinguishable from zero," they wrote.

"We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales," the study's authors wrote. "While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing."

http://news.com.com/2102-1027_3-5181562.html?tag=st.util.print

[twiceshy]

47. How about their product sucks....

Tinny sounding music in a flimsy plastic case totally lacking the warmth and joint rolling convenience of the old album format. Most of the artists I follow today do not belong to the RIAA, they distribute independently.

[Robb]

26. Let's think this through.

When you sue someone, you expect to recoup damages.

College students as a rule are broke.

A strategy centered on suing college students can't have the goal of recouping damages.

Whatever the goal actually is -- I'd guess intimidation -- wouldn't the lawsuit be inherently frivolous?

[onenote]

28. no

Your premise -- lawsuits are filed for the purpose of recouping damages -- is flawed. Many lawsuits...infringement suits in particular, are filed for the purpose of forcing someone to cease allegedly unlawful behavior...to obtain an injunction. Damages are frequently secondary in such cases.

[sendero]

35. This is about intimidation...

... not about getting actual dollars. They are trying to scare everyone into stopping file sharing.

Good luck with that.

[BreweryYardRat]

27. Oh hey, my school's in there.

Here's hoping I don't get a letter from those fucksocks.

[ryanmuegge]

29. Holy shit. NIU? That's hitting close to home for me.

Here at Western, we can't download anything because those ports are firewalled.

[hunter]

31. Funny business plan that -- to attack your best customers.

Pretty soon now the RIAA will be the kiss of death for new musicians, and a hollow echoing crypt for dead musicians -- a trade association for the dead and dying...

If you are a listener or a musician, why put up with that shit?

The future is probably something like this:

http://www.magnatune.com

People who will go to the bother of downloading music also like to purchase physical albums, and most of them are happy to support their favorite artists by paying for their music.

College students who don't have much money now will very likely have the money to buy albums in the future. It's a very stupid move to piss them off.

[ccjlld]

33. I think this is a round-about-way

of getting these Universities and Colleges to block peer-to-peer sharing apps completely. If the IT depts of these Universities get too many notices, they will become afraid of being sued themselves and will shut things down. Ours already blocks peer-to-peer sharing apps, which is probably why they weren't on the list.

[Alexander]

34. Don't they send out a "cease and desist" warning letter first?

I'll start quaking in my boots when the mailman delivers me one of those.

:eyes:

[Xithras]

36. Not anymore.

They're not required to, so they don't. The first notice you will receive will be a notice demanding a several thousand dollar settlement. If you don't pay that, they'll sue you for some gawdawful amount of money.

[Alexander]

38. I wonder if there would be grounds for a counter-suit.

Particularly since my school is the first one listed.

[depakid]

41. Progressives to RIAA

Prepare to have your abusive intellectual property laws and contract practices revamped in 2009.

[NashVegas]

42. You Think?

What political party gets the majority of entertainment industry political donations?

Who's going to tell David Geffen he can't get what he wants?

Only a total boycott will solve this.

[ProudDad]

44. Not just a boycott

Go out and see your local performers at clubs and coffee houses and buy their CDs (if you like their music).

Don't give your money to the bigs. Hell, most of the music they produce is shit anyway!!!

[ProudDad]

43. This from the rapacious "industry"

that has been ripping off artists for over a hundred years! :puke: :puke:

Now they're sooooo concerned with the poor artists... :cry: :cry:


Did you know that the average songwriter on a major label gets at most 25% of their author's royalties from a major?

Did you know that the average act gets about 3-4% of record sales wholesale revenue? Did you know that most if not all of that goes to "reimburse" the label for their SERIOUSLY INFLATED production, recording and promotion expenses before they see a dime?

How about all of the Motown artists that hardly saw a dime from record sales?

The Grateful Dead finally sued Warner Bros a while back since they NEVER saw a nickle of royalties from any of their albums.

The record companies are SLIME. They are crooks and they wouldn't know good music if it ran up on the sidewalk and bit them in the ass! :nopity: :nopity:

Most good music is marketed by the artists as self-produced CDs from the bandstand.

[Zhade]

45. In the immortal words of Futuristic Sex Robotz...

fuck the m p double a
fuck the r i double a
fuck the suits behind the psa
and fuck em all for the dmca!

This is just as bullshit as the groups suing websites over guitar tablature for - get this - copyright infringement.

[Centered]

46. Wonder if Metallica can finally be proud of what they have created

haven't purchased one of thier CD's in years... since the whole napster thing.

[Zodiak]

49. If you are a Gen Xer

you might remember that Metallica used bootlegged tapes of their concerts to make the "Cliff em all" video. I'm sure some money was made on that video.

How times have changed. I refuse to listen to ONE NOTE from Metallica ever since they said "if you download music, you shouldn't listen to MEtallica"

I took them at their word. Besides, they sold out, anyways. Their music sucks.