Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:15PM EST
See Comments (15)
The music industry is stepping up efforts to stanch illegally downloaded music over campus computer networks. The AP reports that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is sending thousands more complaints to colleges, asking them to take action against individual students who have downloaded music for free over peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.
Music sharing over P2P networks, such as BitTorrent and Gnutella, is as much a part of campus life as keg parties and all-nighters. Many universities take a hands-over-the-eyes approach to file sharing, as Chris Null found at the start of this school year. But some schools are stepping up action in response to the music industry's efforts.
From the AP story:
• At Michigan State University, students caught twice for illegally downloading music files must sit through an anti-piracy DVD made by the RIAA. If they are caught a third time, they can be suspended. The university received 783 complaints from the RIAA in December alone.
• At the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, students get warnings the first and second time they are cited for illegal downloads. The third time, the university shuts down a student's Internet connection and sends the case to a dean for possible further punishment.
• But at Purdue University in Indiana, which received 1,068 complaints so far this year, administrators take another tack. They rarely notifiy students because they do not agree that it's the school's role to track down students, which takes time and resources.
The music industry can identify an individual student who has illegally downloaded a music file only by his or her numerical Internet address. Only the school has the ability to trace that address to identify an individual student by name.
To all the parents who are wondering what all this is about, check out this P2P primer post for an overview of peer-to-peer networks and sharing files.
At the heart of this is the battle over DRM (digital rights management) and whether it's time for the music industry to find another way to protect copyrighted music. (Check out this USA Today story on this issue.) As Steve Jobs said in his now-famous open letter to the music industry, only 2 percent of music found on iPods is purchased from the iTunes store. In the meantime, college students shouldn't be surprised if they find emails in their inboxes saying they've got some 'splaining to do.
Related:
A Survey of U.S. Universities' Peer-to-Peer Policies
P2P Primer for Parents
Steve Jobs Finally Stands up Against DRM. Sort of
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
correct me if i'm wrong but DOWNLOADING for PERSONAL USE is not what'll get you in trouble - it's OPENING OR SHARING copywrited material that's illegal. if you download for your own use and never share from there, i belive you're legal. anybody know for sure??
Ok, now don't misunderstand this, because stealing IS wrong, BUT... If the already rich people are worried about the extra money they aren't receiving, maybe they should lower the prices of CDs so more people will consider that option... I don't have the budget for a 16 or more dollar CD that will be "yesterday's music" in no time... I only buy CDs when it's timeless stuff like the Eagles or Elvis... I don't see it as a loss for them. If I couldn't borrow and copy a friends CD I would have just lived without the music. I would not have bought it, so they never would have had my money either way... I think the big execs need to stop and realize that kids are working around their prices because they are getting outrageous... Lower CD prices and watch more people buy the album themselves...
it would be better if there were a bottom line to music downloads :there's always payment to be done because free stuff are too good to be true! however,why charge $3,000 to college students who probably have to take time off to pay this amount off? it may be legal,but sounds more like revenge. the amount doesn't always add to that amount to pay off the illegal downloads.
so i guess this means limewire is unlawful????
I personaaly know an artist that was on top of the charts during the 70s (albeit a one hit wonder), and more than not forgotten today. He makes around 27 cents from any purchased CDs, and could care less. From his lips: "I don't care if you download all my stuff. I won't get anything anyway." Just how much does todays artist get from their CD sales, or the downloads? I'm in agreement that the artist's money is made at their concerts. CDs and the radio are really just advertising. It's RIAA that's crying. That in a nutsheck is the extent of my knowledge in the music industry. I'm not a big downloader, but by G**, if I own the CD/DVD legally, I should be allowed to copy it for that roadtrip in the van!
My last post should have read around 7 cents per $9-12 greatest hits CD sold. I don't imagine many are sold. He really doesn't bother worrying about it anymore.
technology has greatly increased the profit margin for the music industry. Unfortunately, there are two sides to every story, and now they are losing money. I say, oh well thats the price you pay. You dont hear fine artist complaining because their art is freely accessable and visible from the internet. Did musicians begin suing people at the turn of the century hen radio began to play their music for free? NO, they were excited that their work could be shard and inturn it helped to fill seats at their shows. They are fighting what is an inevitable loss. Unfortunately they are going to take a few college kids down on the way.
The RIAA lawsuits are a joke. In order for the organization to successfully sue someone, they need to have a certain degree of evidence, and when they file against someone they have no evidence except for an IP address and in some rare cases, a MAC address. There is no evidence that the individuals in question were actually sharing the song the RIAA says they were, a filename is not direct proof that the file contained copyrighted material. Furthermore, prove it was that person who shared it. They have no direct evidence, they have nothing. "It could have been someone on my unsecured wireless network." "Someone was on my computer." "I name large PDF files the name of songs for fun." On a motion for summary judgment, which has been successfully filed on numerous occasions, the RIAA lawsuit doesn't stand up because it doesn't have any legal strength to it. The only reason people pay is because they are scared and don't understand how weak those lawsuits are. Fight them. Let the RIAA stew in their greed - don't give in and pay for more campaigns against college students.
Someone needs to countersue for invading peoples privacy by illegaly searching peoples computers using spyware. There are two sides to this.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by idreamer24 on Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:34AM EDT Report Abuse
sorry boocnew but they rarely use their money to support their families. they normally use their concert money or signing bonus to take care of their family and then the rest of the money they get is used on expensive rare cars and diamond jewelry, which aren't a necessity at all.