Jump to content


RIAA tells students: Pay up for downloads


Bradcore
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Recording Industry Association of America asked the university to pass along letters to the students with Internet addresses accused of being involved with the illegal sharing of copyrighted music. The university notified the students on Monday.

 

"The downloading has occurred and we can't change that, but we can let them know what their options are," OU spokeswoman Sally Linder said Wednesday.

 

Patrick McGee, a local attorney the university arranged to meet with students, said $3,000 is the standard offer though cases have settled for as much as $5,000. He has represented four Ohio University students in file-sharing lawsuits.

 

Jenni Engebretsen, spokeswoman for the trade group, based in Washington, D.C., would not disclose or confirm what the standard settlement offer is. She did say no cases have gone to trial yet across the country.

 

As part of its ongoing copyright crackdown, the association has already sued about 18,000 computer users nationwide since September 2003. The figure includes 1,062 computer users at 130 universities.

 

The association said last month that it intended to sue more students and others on campuses in the next three months than it has in the past three years and that it would send 400 letters a month to computer users suspected of copyright infringement.

 

Letters were sent to 13 universities last week, giving students 20 days to pay a settlement.

 

A letter to one Ohio University student told her that she distributed 787 audio files, putting her total minimum potential liability at more than $590,000. The minimum damages under the law is $750 for each copyright recording that had been shared, the letter said.

 

Many students cannot even afford the $3,000, McGee said.

 

"I think the record company is smart enough to know that a lot of students do not have the money," he said. "They can't actually take them up on the offer."

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_...ng_music_ohio_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the recording industry of america wants to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...i didnt realize they had republican roots

 

 

 

Don't take this personally but your reply is highly uninformed, and has unfortunately become the slogan of those who try to rationalize theft.

 

 

My signature says it all. Come up with an argument against it.

 

 

 

The message from the RIAA is simple: If you choose to break the law, prepare to face consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the recording industry of america wants to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...i didnt realize they had republican roots

 

 

 

Don't take this personally but your reply is highly uninformed, and has unfortunately become the slogan of those who try to rationalize theft.

 

 

My signature says it all. Come up with an argument against it.

 

 

 

The message from the RIAA is simple: If you choose to break the law, prepare to face consequences.

that was the purpose of my post...it is sarcasm...but my point is...whether it is legal or not...i have a hard time justifying handing over my hard earned money to million and billionaires...maybe the RIAA should realize that a good portion of america has a hard time buying a cd for 10-20 bucks when it cost 10 cents to make...and as for your point about the law...if colonists never opposed British law, we would be paying for our music with dead queens rather than dead presidents and if drunks abided by prohibition, america would have no more irishmen...my point is...because some genius somewhere thought it would be a good law, doesnt mean it is a good law and maybe if enough people fight this law things will change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the recording industry of america wants to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...i didnt realize they had republican roots

 

 

 

Don't take this personally but your reply is highly uninformed, and has unfortunately become the slogan of those who try to rationalize theft.

 

 

My signature says it all. Come up with an argument against it.

 

 

 

The message from the RIAA is simple: If you choose to break the law, prepare to face consequences.

that was the purpose of my post...it is sarcasm...but my point is...whether it is legal or not...i have a hard time justifying handing over my hard earned money to million and billionaires...maybe the RIAA should realize that a good portion of america has a hard time buying a cd for 10-20 bucks when it cost 10 cents to make...and as for your point about the law...if colonists never opposed British law, we would be paying for our music with dead queens rather than dead presidents and if drunks abided by prohibition, america would have no more irishmen...my point is...because some genius somewhere thought it would be a good law, doesnt mean it is a good law and maybe if enough people fight this law things will change

 

As a musician, that is really stupid. No relation whatsoever. You can complain all you want that many artists put a hit song on a cd and fill it up with crap, but it is their livelihood.

 

 

Stealing is stealing.

 

 

Thats not to say I don't take part in burning CDs and receiving them, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the RIAA should just give up already!!! my god, when are they gonna get the point that they're never gonna win? ooh they caught a couple thousand students, that won't even put a damper on the world of free music. this generation is too smart with technology and too cheap to give in. i personally don't think it SHOULD be free but hey, i'm sure as hell gonna take advantage while it is.

 

and in reference to your sig, you don't think the whole world would be in gap shirts if some dude found a code out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the RIAA should just give up already!!! my god, when are they gonna get the point that they're never gonna win? ooh they caught a couple thousand students, that won't even put a damper on the world of free music. this generation is too smart with technology and too cheap to give in. i personally don't think it SHOULD be free but hey, i'm sure as hell gonna take advantage while it is.

 

and in reference to your sig, you don't think the whole world would be in gap shirts if some dude found a code out there?

 

 

 

Yeah but that doesnt make it right. Besides, your still looking at it from the criminals perspective (and don't kid yourself, its criminal).

 

My sig looks at it from the owner or more specifically the business owner's perspective. If a guy spends 3 years writing a book about high stakes No Limit poker strategy, should everyone be entitled to his hard work or free?

 

I love my pirated music mainly because it's free and I didn't pay for it.

 

 

 

I have a little news flash for you. "Free" and "I didn't pay for it" are the same thing.

 

 

Hey, if your cool knowing that your a criminal then I guess it's all good right?

 

:thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealing is stealing except when it isn't stealing. As in, it isn't theft. As of right now its a violation of copyright to give out other people's works for free, but you don't go to jail for it, you just may have to pay the plaintiff a sum for violating his copyright.

 

So it isn't theft, nor is it illegal in the criminal sense. Its the violation of an artificial right created under the common law and furthered by the Lanham Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Anthrax used to have a bunch of their more popular songs available on their website for free download with a message that read "We were going to sue our fans for downloading our music, but we decided to just give it to them for free."

 

But seriously, I'm not advocating illegal downloads, but in it's defense, the record companies made a lot more from me than they would've if I didn't download them. There have been so many songs that I downloaded and because I ended up liking them, I went out and bought the actual album. Stuff that I never would've bought without downloading them before hand. Fact of the matter is, they've gotten more business from me because of downloads. I support the artists I like and if I don't like them, I delete it off my computer. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

Yup, that's exactly what it is. The RIAA (and the movie industry) need to adjust their business models, not force the world to adapt to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealing is stealing except when it isn't stealing. As in, it isn't theft. As of right now its a violation of copyright to give out other people's works for free, but you don't go to jail for it, you just may have to pay the plaintiff a sum for violating his copyright.

 

So it isn't theft, nor is it illegal in the criminal sense. Its the violation of an artificial right created under the common law and furthered by the Lanham Act.

 

 

 

 

So who's paying the copyright holder the sum for the violation?

 

9 times out of 10, no one is.

 

 

 

You can spin it all you want bro, it's stealing. End of story.

 

I remember Anthrax used to have a bunch of their more popular songs available on their website for free download with a message that read "We were going to sue our fans for downloading our music, but we decided to just give it to them for free."

 

But seriously, I'm not advocating illegal downloads, but in it's defense, the record companies made a lot more from me than they would've if I didn't download them. There have been so many songs that I downloaded and because I ended up liking them, I went out and bought the actual album. Stuff that I never would've bought without downloading them before hand. Fact of the matter is, they've gotten more business from me because of downloads. I support the artists I like and if I don't like them, I delete it off my computer. Simple as that.

 

 

 

So what's wrong for instance with the 20 second sample of the song that ITunes offers prior to purchasing the track?

 

You come across as I consumer that has spent a lot of money on music so Im not coming after you personally so please dont take it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

Just like to add to the conversation that the RIAA won The Consumerist's "Worst Company in America 2007." They even beat out Halliburton, who EVERYONE hates.

 

Another level-up in the RIAA's ongoing quest to show everyone how not to run a company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Anthrax used to have a bunch of their more popular songs available on their website for free download with a message that read "We were going to sue our fans for downloading our music, but we decided to just give it to them for free."

 

But seriously, I'm not advocating illegal downloads, but in it's defense, the record companies made a lot more from me than they would've if I didn't download them. There have been so many songs that I downloaded and because I ended up liking them, I went out and bought the actual album. Stuff that I never would've bought without downloading them before hand. Fact of the matter is, they've gotten more business from me because of downloads. I support the artists I like and if I don't like them, I delete it off my computer. Simple as that.

 

 

 

So what's wrong for instance with the 20 second sample of the song that ITunes offers prior to purchasing the track?

 

You come across as I consumer that has spent a lot of money on music so Im not coming after you personally so please dont take it that way.

 

That's all well and good, and I've even bought a couple cd's based on that. But there are times when those 20 or 30 second clips don't do the song any justice at all. For example, a few years back I saw a cd at Wal-Mart that looked interesting. I scanned it and listened to it's little 30 second clips, but the clips just weren't very good representation of the album. I mean, they peaked my interest a little, but not enough for me to warrent spending $16 on an album I wasn't really sure on. So I went home and downloaded a couple full songs from the album. I really liked them so I went out and bought the cd. On the flipside, however, there have been in times where I've been in that same situation and when I downloaded the full songs, they sucked. I deleted them from my computer and saved myself from spending $16 on a crappy cd.

 

Yes, there are people who abuse downloading music, but the true fans, the ones who really appreciate it, will go out and buy the real thing. I have over 1,600 songs on my iTunes play list. Out of those tracks, I would say there is only a small handfull of songs I don't actually own on cd. Out of those ones I don't actually own on disc, I'd say 20% are tracks that have never been released and will probably never be released, 50% are from cds I used to own but were lost or stolen, 25% are on albums I will be picking up in the near future, and 5% are just random stuff I really really wanted to listen to at that moment. Now, that 1,600 songs on my play list isn't even half of my cd collection. If you figure an aver of 15 songs per cd, thats over 106 cds. My cd collection (just a rough guess off the top of my head) is probably 250 to 300 cds. I would say a reasonable chunk (not a big chunk, but a reasonable sized chunk) of those cds were purchased because I downloaded some songs that looked interesting and I ended up really liking them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

To continue with the RIAA theme:

 

NPR may lead fight against Internet radio royalty rate hike

 

Sounds like NPR may be the first to take action against the recent massive increases in the royalties Internet radio stations are obligated to pay to performers of the music they play. The following statement is from National Public Radio's communication VP Andi Sporkin, and the key sentences outlining action, a petition for reconsideration, are at the end:

 

[update to below 3/14: Leading pubcaster KCRW issues its own statement.]

 

?This is a stunning, damaging decision for public radio and its commitment to music discovery and education, which has been part of our tradition for more than half a century. Public radio?s agreements on royalties with all such organizations, including the RIAA, have always taken into account our public service mission and non-profit status. These new rates, at least 20 times more than what stations have paid in the past, treat us as if we were commercial radio ? although by its nature, public radio cannot increase revenue from more listeners or more content, the factors that set this new rate. Also, we are being required to pay an internet royalty fee that is vastly more expensive than what we pay for over-the-air use of music, although for a fraction of the over-the-air audience.

 

?This decision penalizes public radio stations for fulfilling their mandate, it penalizes emerging and non-mainstream musical artists who have always relied on public radio for visibility and ultimately it penalizes the American public, whose local station memberships and taxes will be necessary to cover the millions of dollars that will now be required as payment. On behalf of the public radio system, NPR will pursue all possible action to reverse this decision, which threatens to severely reduce local stations? public service and limit the reach of the entire music community. NPR will begin on Friday, March 16 by filing a petition for reconsideration with the CRB panel, the first step in this process. We ask that the online royalties be returned to their historic arrangement and that public radio can continue to provide its vital service to music discovery.?

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...