RIAA at it again

[allisolm]

Not so fast, Internet2 downloaders

"Entertainment groups said Tuesday they intend to sue hundreds of students accused of illegally distributing copyrighted songs and films across college campuses using the private research network, which boasts speeds hundreds of times faster than the Internet."

"The Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the largest labels, said it will file federal lawsuits Wednesday against 405 students at 18 colleges with access to the Internet2 network. The Motion Picture Association of America said it will file an unspecified number of lawsuits against Internet2 users."

"The RIAA said the 18 schools are Boston University, Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, Drexel University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michigan State University, New York University, Ohio State University, Princeton University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California-San Diego, the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Southern California."

 

[destined]

boo

 

[Amused]

Stop distributing other people's property, and you have nothing to worry about.

The sense of entitlement STILL never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

 

[40Hands]

F the RIAA and MPAA. They stop some people with these scare tactics but they will never stop the trading of music/video.

 

[40Hands]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

Bingo!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

 

[AmigaMan]

what I want to know is how the RIAA knew who was doing the downloading. From the article, it sounds like most people don't have access to Internet2. Unless there was a snitch involved...

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

Nah, I disagree. When you're selling songs online for the same song/$ amount that you would for a CD then your model is messed up. Selling something over the internet that is in a digital format should not cost the same as walking into your local Best Buy and buying a hard copy.

Of course I haven't really looked into a lot of the more recent online outlets so perhaps the price structure has changed.

 

[Modeps]

I hate the RIAA because they file blanket lawsuits against people and force CD prices to climb ever higher, paying their artists practically nothing, not because they're trying to protect their investment.

They should be held to the same standards as every other company and individual in the United States and file lawsuits individually, incurring the costs associated therewith.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

Nah, I disagree. When you're selling songs online for the same song/$ amount that you would for a CD then your model is messed up. Selling something over the internet that is in a digital format should not cost the same as walking into your local Best Buy and buying a hard copy.

Of course I haven't really looked into a lot of the more recent online outlets so perhaps the price structure has changed.

When you buy a CD, very little of the cost is to cover the CD. You are buying the rights to listen to material on the CD.

This is where your argument falls apart.

This is why downloading software usually costs nearly as much as buying the CD at the store.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

Nah, I disagree. When you're selling songs online for the same song/$ amount that you would for a CD then your model is messed up. Selling something over the internet that is in a digital format should not cost the same as walking into your local Best Buy and buying a hard copy.

Of course I haven't really looked into a lot of the more recent online outlets so perhaps the price structure has changed.

When you buy a CD, very little of the cost is to cover the CD. You are buying the rights to listen to material on the CD.

This is where your argument falls apart.

This is why downloading software usually costs nearly as much as buying the CD at the store.

So when you are buying a CD you are not paying for distribution/transportation costs? The cost of utilities at brick and mortar stores? Employees? Loss Prevention? Etc?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

Nah, I disagree. When you're selling songs online for the same song/$ amount that you would for a CD then your model is messed up. Selling something over the internet that is in a digital format should not cost the same as walking into your local Best Buy and buying a hard copy.

Of course I haven't really looked into a lot of the more recent online outlets so perhaps the price structure has changed.

When you buy a CD, very little of the cost is to cover the CD. You are buying the rights to listen to material on the CD.

This is where your argument falls apart.

This is why downloading software usually costs nearly as much as buying the CD at the store.

So when you are buying a CD you are not paying for distribution/transportation costs? The cost of utilities at brick and mortar stores? Employees? Loss Prevention? Etc?

All account for very little of the price since the CDs are shipped and stocked in bulk.

And, again, your objections to their business model or pricing does not entitle you to take their product for free.

NONE of these are valid arguments for theft.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

Nah, I disagree. When you're selling songs online for the same song/$ amount that you would for a CD then your model is messed up. Selling something over the internet that is in a digital format should not cost the same as walking into your local Best Buy and buying a hard copy.

Of course I haven't really looked into a lot of the more recent online outlets so perhaps the price structure has changed.

When you buy a CD, very little of the cost is to cover the CD. You are buying the rights to listen to material on the CD.

This is where your argument falls apart.

This is why downloading software usually costs nearly as much as buying the CD at the store.

So when you are buying a CD you are not paying for distribution/transportation costs? The cost of utilities at brick and mortar stores? Employees? Loss Prevention? Etc?

All account for very little of the price since the CDs are shipped and stocked in bulk.

And, again, you objections to their business model or pricing does not entitle you to take their product for free.

NONE of these are valid arguments for theft.

You're attacking the result and I'm attacking the cause. I don't want people to steal music either but I think the music industry is seriously mislead if they think that their actions are going to solve the piracy problem. They need to figure out why people are stealing and deal with it. I think it boils down to something more than entitlement simply because even people with money are doing the theft.

I don't buy music very much anymore mainly because I don't like much of anything that's come out recently. I did notice that one of the local CD stores is selling older CDs (non new releases) for around $18.99. That's some insane amount when your average CD buyer is probably a teenager.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Oops! Maybe the RIAA will figure out sooner or later that people are going to continue to download regardless of how many people they file against. Maybe it's time to start blaming the current business model that causes the piracy instead of blaming the piracy...

They already sell single songs, and over the internet, too.

How else would they stop this? Give the music away?

That's about it. They'd have to give it away.

Music piracy is not about objections to business models. It is about a sense of entitlement and theft.

Nah, I disagree. When you're selling songs online for the same song/$ amount that you would for a CD then your model is messed up. Selling something over the internet that is in a digital format should not cost the same as walking into your local Best Buy and buying a hard copy.

Of course I haven't really looked into a lot of the more recent online outlets so perhaps the price structure has changed.

When you buy a CD, very little of the cost is to cover the CD. You are buying the rights to listen to material on the CD.

This is where your argument falls apart.

This is why downloading software usually costs nearly as much as buying the CD at the store.

So when you are buying a CD you are not paying for distribution/transportation costs? The cost of utilities at brick and mortar stores? Employees? Loss Prevention? Etc?

All account for very little of the price since the CDs are shipped and stocked in bulk.

And, again, you objections to their business model or pricing does not entitle you to take their product for free.

NONE of these are valid arguments for theft.

You're attacking the root and I'm attacking the cause. I don't want people to steal music either but I think the music industry is seriously mislead if they think that their actions are going to solve the piracy problem. They need to figure out why people are stealing and deal with it. I think it boils down to something more than entitlement simply because even people with money are doing the theft.

I don't buy music very much anymore mainly because I don't like much of anything that's come out recently. I did notice that one of the local CD stores is selling older CDs (non new releases) for around $18.99. That's some insane amount when your average CD buyer is probably a teenager.

The cause is the sense of entitlement. Blaming the music industry for people stealing their music is like blaming a woman for her own rape because she was wearing a short skirt.

People are stealing because they don't think it's wrong. They DO feel entitled to it. It's a cultural problem.

 

[RandomFool]

RIT sent out an email about this a few weeks back saying that the RIAA contacted them and they wouldn't give out the info unless there was a court order or something. It was kinda scary, but It made me glad I moved off campus.

Piracy isn't going to stop no matter how many people they sue. I'm pretty sure the RIAA knows that and doesn't care. It's all about the money and trying to scare the normal person away from downloading. Hopefully someday they'll give up and go home.

Also, I'm almost positive that most people by now know it's wrong to download music, unless they've been living in a bubble without access to media. I still buy cds not as often because they're so damn expensive if prices were lower i'd buy more but they're not so i don't.

 

[Mathlete]

Originally posted by: Modeps
I hate the people who steal music because they force CD prices to climb ever higher, paying the artists nothing, because they're trying to protect their wallet.

They should be held to the same standards as every other company and individual in the United States and be sued individually, incurring the costs associated therewith.

FIXED

 

[0roo0roo]

thats it.. boycott time.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
thats it.. boycott time.

This is what I don't understand. Instead of these "business model" protesters simply boycotting the music and thus having the courage of their convictions, they steal it and share it.

 

[purbeast0]

i have a question.

why aren't the RIAA and MPAA going after the newsgroups? i don't use them myself at all but I know people who do, and stuff that is released in the 'scene' is on the newsgroups within hours usually, and the newsgroups are very open to the public. how come the newsgroups dont get any attention?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

So when you are buying a CD you are not paying for distribution/transportation costs? The cost of utilities at brick and mortar stores? Employees? Loss Prevention? Etc?

Since when do you have the right to take something for free because you don't like the price? Or even if you don't like their "business model?" That argument was just an excuse, and it's not a valid excuse. Amused is right, people feel they're entitled to it for free, and they won't stop.

Edit: They won't stop unless they're given a huge financial incentive to stop - hence the lawsuits.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Amused
Stop distributing other people's property, and you have nothing to worry about.

The sense of entitlement STILL never ceases to amaze me.

Go through a proxy with no logs or an open access point and you'll have nothing to worrry about either.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
thats it.. boycott time.

This is what I don't understand. Instead of these "business model" protesters simply boycotting the music and thus having the courage of their convictions, they steal it and share it.

Actually.. nah, I do actually buy my music even though I think their model is broken. I may download a song or two to sample it if someone has suggested it but if I like it I'll buy it.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Amused
The cause is the sense of entitlement. Blaming the music industry for people stealing their music is like blaming a woman for her own rape because she was wearing a short skirt.

People are stealing because they don't think it's wrong. They DO feel entitled to it. It's a cultural problem.

Amused, I hate to break your little <insert political spectrum here>-wing conspiracy theory, but it's not about entitlement. It just boils down to free music, why pay for it when you can get it for free? People don't feel entitled(they know they're not supposed to have it), they're thrifty.

 

[gigapet]

good luck getting money out of broke college kids.