File-Sharing Students Say The Ads Made Them Do It
from the wonder-if-they're-pre-law dept
Several students at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst who got sued by the RIAA for sharing music over Internet2 are now demanding that the founder and operator of the file-sharing network they used pay the RIAA to settle the cases. In its standard fashion, the RIAA has told the kids it will settle for payments of $3,750 from each one, and the students think the founder of the i2hub network should pay up -- because they thought that since i2hub advertised on campus, they were allowed to use it to trade copyrighted music, with their lawyers saying that if they'd known it was illegal, they wouldn't have done it. Yes, these are college students, and it's hard to believe that more than 30 of them could honestly think it was okay to share the files, just because there were some on-campus ads. This sounds so perfectly contrived to say that the company's actions induced the students to share copyrighted works that the cynical among us might think the idea could have originated with the RIAA, with its eye on the Grokster decision. But they'd never do that, would they?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They broke the ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They broke the ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They broke the ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
okay....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are campuses that have arranged for
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey quit that
Have any of you seen the commercial where the girl gets pregnant, then she says "I shouldn't have downloaded pirated movies (or songs)." HAHA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monopoly
Really is there anyone that thinks the **AA are doing a good job.
Monopolies suck. Fuck the record labels they have broken far more laws and behaved far less ethically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not too hard to believe...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not too hard to believe...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i like to think im pretty safe
why doesnt everyone do that and save the hassle of downloading? you have to have some friends who buy cds?
to those who think that im ripping my friends off by taking their music i should note that my friends and i go half and half on cds all the time and i give them anything they want from my library.. it comes out pretty fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They broke the ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: i like to think im pretty safe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not too hard to believe...
Here is you logic: I make a copy, they keep the original, therefore it is not stealing
My logic: I steal your stuff, insurance replaces it. What's the issue, you lose some time working on getting it replaced, they lose time trying to recover costs.
Your insurance pays for the original, just like the artists/labels pay for the original. I don't condone their actions, but I don't condone yours either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
If the download ain't a hit, you must acquit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not too hard to believe...
When you download files, you're not taking something away from anyone. The ONLY time this can possibly be a bad thing is if you would have bought the CD if you could't've downloaded the files. Even then it's not necessarily a bad thing - but there's no way it can be a bad thing if you're just DLing music you wouldn't normally buy.
This applies to software and movies, too. I download and watch bad movies that I never would have paid to see in the theatre. I get free entertainment. No one would have gained by my not having downloaded; so who gives a crap?
A good example of the "it's not necessarily bad" rule is when your money would be going to evil people. I use a pirated version of Windows XP. If I didn't have access to the pirated version, I would have bought it. But I believe that I have done a good deed, because Microsoft is a shitty corporation in many ways, and the only chance my money has of doing any good is if it went into the Bill Gates Foundation. Same with Metallica - I have downloaded music from Metallica that I would have purchased if not for BitTorrent. So? They used to be talented (not anymore), but they are evil bastards who do no good with their money.
I don't support immoral actions; but the recording industry's propaganda isn't necessarily true. Morality isn't screwing over an industry you hate, or following rules you don't understand - it's understanding very well, and doing what is right regardless of propaganda and rules. It's all about the greatest good for the greatest number, and my getting free entertainment I wouldn't have paid for anyway is just that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Re: It's not too hard to believe...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right....
and while I'm here I want you to know..I spoke to Berkowitz's dog right after the arrest was made.. He gave me a statement, and he sounded sincere to me...He said, "Cats, goddammit, I told him to kill cats!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Half of what people "steal" is public anyway
And as for non-public materials like music, I'll admit, ya I downloaded THREE cd's total (ya I know most of you guys have a few hundred, and that I'm most likely a total loser) - and you know what? I wouldnt have listened to an OUNCE of music before a friend of mine sent me a few System of a Down mp3s - once I got 3 out of 4 of the cd's on my drive, I instantly grew to love em, I'm gonna go out and buy once I get enough back into my bank account.
POINT BEING HERE: if I hadn't had the opportunity to hear what was on those cd's, there wasn't a chance in hell frozen over that I woulda ever bought em or any other cd - not because I woulda just downloaded em, but because I never would've given a rats ass.
And you know what? Even then, they are on the radio, correct? If I remember right, some of the better of the tv tuners out there support AM/FM radio - you could just record it strait from the publicly broadcast radiowaves (albeit only the censored versions radio stations air).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
now the person who did the giveing and the person who got the software is not alowed to give it out
only the first legal owner. any ways yea.. 30 people i dont think thay dint know it was illegal i belive thay knew 100% what thay was doing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Half of what people
Sharing music, movies, software and whatever are illegal activities in all of these circumstances and everyone here knows it.
Now are the tactics of the RIAA right? I seriously think not, but that has nothing to do with the legality of the activities themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Half of what people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Half of what people
We all break laws that are bullshit.
BECAUSE THEY ARE BULLSHIT.
If you say that you never do. You're a liar.
At least the speeding laws are actually meant to protect people from REAL HARM (as the law should). What the hell do these bullshit copyright laws protect? They protect already filthy rich people from losing an extra million or two that they would NEVER MISS because of how ridiculously rich they already are.
GREED.
I hope these kids can place the blame on someone richer than they are. It's unfortunate they were even caught for breaking such BULLSHIT laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Half of what people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not too hard to believe...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In response
If downloading porn is not illegal, should music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
While the RIAA calls it stealing, I don't see how you can say such a thing when there are very easy technical means to get the same thing. If you've ever watched an NFL on TV, you'll always hear how you're not allowed to reproduce the game without permission. What about TiVO?
Another argument is on the guitar tabs and lyrics. If you read actual copyright law, it is illegal to make a copy of sheet music you purchased so your friend can play along with you. So, if you have a band and want to play something (for whatever purpose), each member must pay for their copy of the sheet music. That's ridiculous.
In my opinion, as long as you don't make money off of it, that activity should be illegal. Reselling the CDs for a profit would not be legal. There are a ton of legalities for every issue, but the P2P argument is definitely going over the top. It can be reasonable, however the RIAA doesn't really care and is determined to spend all of their time and money on legal fees trying to prove a point. They can go to hell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not too hard to believe...
What I mean is, even if you didn't pay for XP, you're still contributing to Windows install base (not market share since you didn't buy it). You know, the 90%+ computers that run Windows. That's one of the reasons they aren't pushing hard for big-league pirates to be put away; the more people who use their software, the more people get locked in.
Even if you got the OS for free, you're now more likely (in their eyes) to use other MS services and products, like Windows Media Player, MSN, Visual Studio, etc. Even if you never buy another thing from them, you're one less statistic for alternative software and one more for "Big Brother".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what it the real point here?
Lets take the RIAA out of the equation and substitute or generic entity.
Now lets remove topics and arguments (ahem, I am sure I really meant to say "debates") about what constitutes theft and the technology behind music ripping, distributing, and the like.
Lets even take out the highly opinionated view of whether the students and their lawyers are schiesters, foolish, or both.
So, we can better avoid saying, "These students are obviously full of it, and while I applaud their efforts to liberate music and stick it da' man, they are looking rather silly by blaming adverts."
Lets try asking, "Is it moral, ethical, or legal for an organization who's activities are treated as illegal (at least as precidence goes with regards to being fodder for the litigation) to be allowed to advertise on campus?"
More specifically, lets add the following clause, "...where students can easily partake in the illegal activities but without CLEAR predicate knowledge of the legality of what they are doing..."
This excludes goofy notions of "plausable deniability" and the usage of legal systems to do illegal activities.
I am really curious what the law and the University will say on matters like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]