RIAA Just Keeps On Suing Students: Conversation At The End Of A Gun Barrel

from the some-conversation dept

Tue, Dec 16th 2008 8:14am — Mike Masnick

The folks at Warner Music Group insist that their efforts to convince universities to enforce a not-so-voluntary "usage fee" on all students is part of an attempt to start a conversation on new business models. However, they conveniently leave important stakeholders (those who would be forced to shoulder the bill) out of such a conversation, and have still refused to actually participate here in the conversation. So far, their only "participation" was having a PR person send a statement scolding me for daring to raise questions about such a plan. Apparently, the sort of conversation Warner Music wants is one where everyone lines up and agrees with Warner Music.

And, of course, it should surprise no one that the RIAA, where Warner Music has plenty of influence, is still out there filing more lawsuits, even as Warner insists it's turned over a new leaf and is looking for a more reasonable solution. In other words, this isn't a "conversation" at all. It's a protection racket. Warner Music and the other major record labels are just going to keep suing until people agree to hand them a big chunk of money, apparently.

So, Warner Music, if you really want people to believe that you've turned over a new leaf, and that you're interested in a real conversation about new music industry business models, how about you call off the legal dogs and stop filing lawsuits against both individuals and companies and actually participate in a conversation? We're still more than willing to help facilitate such a conversation.

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

Filed Under: conversation, lawsuits, riaa, students
Companies: riaa

62 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 8:35am

The RIAA would be foolish to cease its current attempts to enforce its rights until such time as a new legal framework is agreed to that would eliminate their need.

By the way, techdirt continues to insist that the proposed talking points include mandatory payments by all university students. Wrong. The RIAA does recognize problems associated with this issue, and has thusly made it clear that they and the universities will address this issue in their ongoing discussions.

Sorry, techdirt, but I believe you do a disservice by characterizing talking points as decisions that have already been made when clearly they have not. It is rare indeed when a final, executed agreement bears any resemblance to the initial talking points. Like the RIAA, the universities likely have their talking points, and it is these respective talking points that help define divergent issues that will have to be addressed and reconciled during the actual negotiations. Moreover, this entire project pertains to a proposal for conducting a limited trial to see if the approach is even feasible. The key words are "limited" and "trial". Words matter, and these two must always be kept in mind when discussing this matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 8:59am
  
  Re:
  Hmmm........ a P.R person from Warner Music?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    guaranteed it's a shill.
    
    Ahh, warner. They show up in my ip filters whenever I upload their music all the time. I guess I'll have to keep doing it.
    /share on
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  One, Warner has offered no option 2. There is a blanket license or nothing.
  
  Two, The RIAA is not involved in this discussion. If they were they would hold off on the lawsuits. Nor have I seen that the colleges or students (who would be the ones paying) are involved.
  
  Three, the payments are what are known as Blanket. Even in the Warner PowerPoint presentation it states "All students or none" (slide 4, point 1, sub-point 2)
  
  Four, You appear to have some inside information that has not yet been released to the public. Please offer a link to where the RIAA is saying that this is not final, limited or trial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- eleete, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  A discussion between the universities and the RIAA without including the students AKA, those who would be paying the fees, is not exactly all encompassing. Perhaps it is the RIAA and posts like this doing the disservice ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh Martin, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Yes, words do matter, and yours conjure nothing more than an illusion. Your arguments (if we can stretch the meaning so far as to call them that) are completely and utterly disingenuous. But then again, what should we expect from a recording industry shill, especially one who's too ashamed to be identified?
  
  Regardless of the semantics, if you wish to call them talking points, the fact remains that you're not discussing this plan with those who will have to shoulder the bill. When you have secret "talks" that exclude the individuals about whom you're "talking," we don't call it discussion, or talking points, or any other nicety you can dream up. When you seek to take something from someone without their consent (like money), we call it collusion. Look it up.
  
  The only disservice being done here is by you and those whom you represent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  all i hear is bla bla bla, i see no supporting evidence).
  
  tell your employers they are wasting there money having you try a PR attempt here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  The RIAA would be foolish to cease its current attempts to enforce its rights until such time as a new legal framework is agreed to that would eliminate their need.
  
  Really? I hope no one relies on you for business advice.
  
  First, making a good faith effort to stop doing something that pisses off pretty much everyone your dealing with is generally considered a good way to go into a negotiation. Continuing to act in such a boorish manner, generally doesn't make the other side all that willing to negotiate.
  
  Of course, if you're doing what Warner's doing, and not including the *real* other party, perhaps it makes sense in some twisted away.
  
  More importantly, however, is your bizarre claim that the RIAA somehow "needs" to be doing this. It does not. There is no requirement or need for the RIAA to sue people. That strategy has been a huge failure and enormously damaging to the recording industry. To claim that it needs to keep suing people until some other deal is worked out makes absolutely no sense.
  
  By the way, techdirt continues to insist that the proposed talking points include mandatory payments by all university students. Wrong. The RIAA does recognize problems associated with this issue, and has thusly made it clear that they and the universities will address this issue in their ongoing discussions.
  
  Jim Griffin's talking points, and the slides presented suggest you are incorrect on this. There has been no indication that this is actually voluntary in any way, shape or form.
  
  Sorry, techdirt, but I believe you do a disservice by characterizing talking points as decisions that have already been made when clearly they have not. It is rare indeed when a final, executed agreement bears any resemblance to the initial talking points
  
  True. But, let me explain to you how it happens that the end result is not like the talking points. It's because people who realize the talking points are bogus stand up and speak up about them. And yet, when we do that, Warner tells us we're not supposed to say anything.
  
  Funny how that works.
  
  Like the RIAA, the universities likely have their talking points, and it is these respective talking points that help define divergent issues that will have to be addressed and reconciled during the actual negotiations.
  
  And who's giving the talking points for the people actually impacted by this decision?
  
  Moreover, this entire project pertains to a proposal for conducting a limited trial to see if the approach is even feasible. The key words are "limited" and "trial". Words matter, and these two must always be kept in mind when discussing this matter.
  
  You cannot create such a system in a "limited" manner without all sorts of unintended consequences. I think it's fair to address some of those potential consequences before we initiate a trial.
  
  I still simply cannot understand the talking points you and Warner make suggesting that I am somehow being unfair in pointing out the problems with the current proposal. It makes no sense at all, unless your plan really is as weak as proposed, and you have no actual responses to the points raised.
  
  So far, no one has addressed the actual points I raised. Instead, we are told that we should shut up and sit tight until Jim Griffin hands us the final plan, worked out with the universities.
  
  I don't buy that. Especially when the RIAA won't even make a good faith gesture in stopping its lawsuits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If I may be so bold, why not contact Mr. Griffin and offer to take a seat at the negotiating table where you will serve as the representative for those you see as the real stakeholders?
    
    Clearly nothing a rights holder does will ever sway you from your firm opinion that copyright law should be demolished. Maybe it should, then again maybe it should not. The one thing I know for sure is that I do not know the answer. Apparently you are not burdened with such doubt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike (profile), 16 Dec 2008 @ 1:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If I may be so bold, why not contact Mr. Griffin and offer to take a seat at the negotiating table where you will serve as the representative for those you see as the real stakeholders?
      
      What makes you think we have not done so?
      
      Clearly nothing a rights holder does will ever sway you from your firm opinion that copyright law should be demolished. Maybe it should, then again maybe it should not. The one thing I know for sure is that I do not know the answer. Apparently you are not burdened with such doubt.
      
      Funny. You always like to insist that when you comment here you don't take one side or another, and you never are trying to cast aspersions towards me. You insist that you are only here to present information. Yet, here you are, clearly, making judgment statements (incorrect ones, I might add) about my position. You really ought to look in the mirror sometime.
      
      Anyway, to respond to your baseless assertion (and I'll note, by the way, that you DID NOT respond to a single point I raised), it is simply not true that "nothing a rights holder does will ever sway" me. I've seen many rights holders to incredibly smart things, engaging with their audience, and coming up with new and intriguing business models. That's what I encourage.
      
      So I'm not sure why you attribute to me positions I don't have. I am quite persuadable if someone were to just present some evidence that stood up to scrutiny.
      
      Maybe it should, then again maybe it should not. The one thing I know for sure is that I do not know the answer. Apparently you are not burdened with such doubt.
      
      Again with these baseless assertions. I have plenty of doubt. And I have explained this before. If I had no doubt, why would I leave the comments open? Why would I actively engage in conversations with folks like you? I want to be persuaded. I want to see evidence. You are not providing it. Instead, you are offering backhanded insults rather than responding to a single point I raised.
      
      That, to me, is not convincing. That, to me, suggests you have no argument.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What makes you think we have not done so?
        
        Perhaps I missed an article authored by techdirt stating that such an offer has been extended to WMG and the schools.
        
        ...baseless assertions...plenty of doubt...
        
        Please correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the site where the clarion call is to eliminate patent and copyright law altogether because the law hinders "innovation" (as the site defines the term)? Is this not the site where any rights holder who dares speak up is immediately denigrated and scolded for even daring to use the law to prop up their "outdated, buggy whip" business models? Is this not the site where attorneys, jurists, rights holders and academics who may offer contrary views are simply declared as being uninformed individuals in need of Econ. 101? I could go on, but it would serve no useful purpose.
        
        If you truly want, as you say, to actively engage in conversations, then perhaps it would be beneficial to listen to what others have to say and give them a fair hearing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 16 Dec 2008 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps I missed an article authored by techdirt stating that such an offer has been extended to WMG and the schools.
        
        You should try reading a little more carefully then.
        
        Please correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the site where the clarion call is to eliminate patent and copyright law altogether because the law hinders "innovation" (as the site defines the term)?
        
        No. We seek to set up methods to enable more innovation. If someone can craft a system that uses patent or copyright that does so, we'd be all for it. To date, no one has shown us any such plan.
        
        Is this not the site where any rights holder who dares speak up is immediately denigrated and scolded for even daring to use the law to prop up their "outdated, buggy whip" business models?
        
        Again, no. We will, however, point out when someone is misusing a law to prop up an outdated business model. Isn't that relevant?
        
        I'm confused what you expect me to do. Do you think that just because you disagree with me, I should not state my opinion?
        
        Is this not the site where attorneys, jurists, rights holders and academics who may offer contrary views are simply declared as being uninformed individuals in need of Econ. 101?
        
        In the same vein, are you not the person who, when presented stacks upon stacks of evidence that your position is wrong, simply declare that we are all immoral and shouldn't be allowed to comment because we don't know some obscure legal precedent?
        
        See how that works?
        
        It's a conversation. I express my opinion, as do you. If you have FACTS to dispute my opinion, go ahead and state them.
        
        Otherwise, why do you keep saying that we should not be expressing our opinion? You have an astoundingly large double standard. It might help to take a look in the mirror.
        
        If you truly want, as you say, to actively engage in conversations, then perhaps it would be beneficial to listen to what others have to say and give them a fair hearing.
        
        Again, PLEASE, point to a SINGLE example where we do not let anyone speak their mind. I engage with many folks, such as yourself, on a regular basis. We give ANYONE a fair hearing on what they have to say.
        
        Your problem seems to be that we're not convinced by things that make no sense and seem unsubstantiated.
        
        It's amusing to me in the same thread where you suggested we shouldn't speak our minds, that you then whine that I don't give people a fair hearing.
        
        You're too much. The only people not giving others a fair hearing appear to be Warner Music, who won't participate in any conversation.
        
        And, once again, I will point out that you have yet to dispute a SINGLE point I raised about the plan.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You should try reading a little more carefully then.
        
        I try. Can you direct me to a cite?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        eleete, 16 Dec 2008 @ 6:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081209/0144083060.shtml
        
        Not to interrupt, but I believe this article shows that 'WMG' are aware of TechDirt. They, like you, want nothing to do with the criticism. They prefer to work via secrecy and without the knowledge of those whom would actually be paying the tax, the people.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081208/1955023057.shtml
        This article says.. " but Warner Music Group was quick to contact us and distance itself from the presentation"
        I believe that article shows an openness one way but not the other. Agreed ?
        
        I think it's a good thing that rights holders fight for their rights. On the other hand the people who consume their products have rights also. This is just one of those issues that the more you debate, the more extreme the arguments get on both sides. I don't believe that any of us that post to TechDirt truly want to see IP laws gone altogether, any more than the rights holders want more complete and monopolistic rights over their content. A balance should be struck, but the way the laws have evolved they are used more like a club to beat down others rather than to protect the creators. IP laws were not prepared for the internet, or vice versa. I think we all want to see a balance stricken so that the rights of the creators are more equal to the rights of the consumers. I can't speak for everyone here though, so I'll let Mike continue explaining.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 16 Dec 2008 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I try.
        
        Apparently not very hard.
        
        Try reading this very post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Apparently not very hard."
        
        A nice comment like this is always a good ice-breaker for a discussion.
        
        "Try reading this very post."
        
        I did. I did not find it to be any different than previous articles stating in essence the whole idea is a waste of time becaue content providers refuse to adopt business practices consistent with your economic views. While it may be difficult to accept, the law does treat digital content as property, and in the final analysis nothing will change in any way you deem significant until the law reflects your view that property should only embrace physical goods. Because property is a concept in large measure dependent upon law, I do not see the current view changing anytime soon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        "Try reading this very post."
        
        I did. I did not find it to be any different than previous articles...
        
        If you're looking for "an article authored by techdirt stating that such an offer has been extended to WMG and the schools", how about this, the last line of the above article:
        We're still more than willing to help facilitate such a conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2008 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If you're looking for "an article authored by techdirt stating that such an offer has been extended to WMG and the schools", how about this, the last line of the above article:
        
        We're still more than willing to help facilitate such a conversation."
        
        Noted, but my comment concerned contacting Mr. Griffin directly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 17 Dec 2008 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Noted, but my comment concerned contacting Mr. Griffin directly.
        
        I'm really confused now. We've done that as well.
        
        Yet, you indicated we had to have done it publicly on the blog.
        
        So which is it. Were we supposed to have reached out to him directly (we have) or via the blog (we have).
        
        Either way, you claimed we had not when we had.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2008 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm really confused now. We've done that as well.
        
        Perhaps you mentioned this in an earlier post, but I do not recall reading in any of the posts that you had already contacted him personally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch, 17 Dec 2008 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Roflmao, man. Give up. Every single post you make in this thread makes you sound like an ass. You are really not helping your side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 18 Dec 2008 @ 3:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps you mentioned this in an earlier post, but I do not recall reading in any of the posts that you had already contacted him personally.
        
        I'm sorry. You expected me to list out all of my email contacts somewhere on the blog? Really?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2008 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Has it occurred to you that my comment may not have been critical in any way? I know I had no intent to do anything other than acknowledge you saying you had in fact contacted him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike (profile), 16 Dec 2008 @ 11:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A nice comment like this is always a good ice-breaker for a discussion.
        
        Given your own repeated insults directed at me and anyone who disagrees with you, I think my comment was, in fact, quite nice.
        
        On top of that, I think it's also accurate. You said that nowhere had we offered to take part in the conversations, and I pointed out that in this very post we did.
        
        Given that it seemed rather obvious that you were wrong, and I had even pointed it out in an earlier comment, it seems quite accurate that you are not trying very hard.
        
        I'm sorry if you felt the comment was unkind, but it was merely a response to your apparently inability to read this post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2008 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please note my comment concerned contacting Mr. Griffin directly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I haven't seen any place where a Techdirt writer has stated that they've been to college or take showers, but I'm reasonably sure that they do.
        
        If either one of those things was pertinent to the conversation and I wasn't sure of the answer, I would ask instead of casting aspersions and making myself look like an ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  Shun the shill! S H U N N N n n n...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nemesis, 17 Dec 2008 @ 4:31am
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward
  You sure sound like an industry plant. your "points" seem to imply a legal background in the way you phrase things.
  
  Also, you must just sit on this site cause you are very often the first responder.
  
  I believe in IP rights. I do not believe in tax everyone because of a few abusers. This is highway robbery and shows everyone that Warner, et al, are no better than common thieves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
duane (profile), 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:04am

this is the problem
It takes you three paragraphs to say Mike is wrong and in that wordspan you've hedged and qualified numerous times. I can't evaluate the truth of what you've said, and you provide no support for your last statement about limited and trial.

Here's a little gem I pulled out from Warner's response to techdirt
"Therefore, we are undertaking an effort to develop new voluntary business models that seek something other than - and we believe, better than - a litigation-based approach."

Based on this, I would wager that a way to get more universities to sit down at the table would be to quit suing. Otherwise, how is the rationale actor to believe Warner or the RIAA will carry through on their promises?

It's something of a dilemma, because Warner and the RIAA aren't exactly in sync, so no matter what Warner said I wouldn't necessary take it as scripture.

Moreover, even if they did get in accord, I wouldn't trust that would do what they say they will. Past actions indicate that would be a poor choice.

Look at it like this, would you trust someone not to knock you on the head and take your wallet, if they were currently whacking other people on the head and taking their wallets. Even if they were assuring you that they weren't going to do it to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:11am

FUCK THE RIAA AND ANYONE/EVERYONE WHOM SUPPORT THEM!

Die In A Fire!

NOT 1 CENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  Thank you for your intelligent contribution to this discussion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
would responer 1, please stand up, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:27am

You really have nothing better to do then wait for Mike to write an article that you don't like and pounce on it like a hungry lion. And the term "Anonymous Coward" describes you well. How can you sleep at night?
Its not like Warner Bros is hurting for money, they just can't get enough. Its sad when such a large company only cares about money and will sue people for enjoying art work. And I would mildly agree with *IAA if some of the money they get actually goes to the artists, hell artists don't even make much money from albums as record labels horde it all. This is truly a confused organization and I feel bad for any artist that has to play by their terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JD Hamilton, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:40am

I don't hate many people or entities. I put RIAA right up there with institutionalized religion. Yes RIAA, I despise you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Mexico Mark, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:44am

Warner's relationship with the RIAA...
Reminds me of the famous scene from a Pink Panther movie.

"Does your dog bite?"

"No"

Reaches to pet dog and almost loses a hand...

"I thought you said your dog does not bite!"

"That is not my dog."

If I were a school, I think I'd keep my distance from both Warner and the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Witty Nickname, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:53am

In other news a student was charged with theft at Wal-Mart for shoplifting a DVD. The student said that Wal-Mart, "Was just trying to defend its d@mn business model, and we should all stand up to them.

Your headline should be "RIAA continues to target thieves." Quit Bitching and write your congressman if you don't like the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps you should offer proof that all university students are thieves. Or maybe we should just label everyone like you an asshole. Or fuckwad. Or prick. Which do you prefer?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:21am
  
  Re:
  So, what you're saying is, every consumer in the USA should be charge $10 a month to cover Wal-marts expected losses from shoplifting? And they also get to sue those that shop-lift?
  
  Wouldn't it make sense that the people who do the stealing pay, not just everyone?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - snowburn14, 16 Dec 2008 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    You do know that anyone shopping at Walmart (or any other retail store) is already footing the bill for [successful] shoplifting, right? Or did you think they were taking that out of the CEO's salary instead of passing it on to the consumer?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeremy, 16 Dec 2008 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I can see where your going with that. But walmart doesn't do a check at the checkout whether your in college or not either. If they want to charge all people more for their records to adjust their losses so be it.. But hitting up college kids for money is in my eyes like walking around a street asking bums for change. When I was in college, I was lucky enough to have $5 to my name at any given point. There is no reason we should hurt the youth for not being able to find the true criminals. Education is the wrong place to hit for money. The RIAA needs to find a better solution to their problem than this. RIAA shouldn't push their problems off on the schools of all things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - lordmorgul, 16 Dec 2008 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If they want to charge all people more for their records to adjust their losses so be it.. But hitting up college kids for money is in my eyes like walking around a street asking bums for change."
        
        This is precisely why everyone should be revolting about this idea/trial/test/highwayrobbery.
        
        The RIAA could very well choose to increase album prices across the entire industry in an attempt to fight piracy... it would be a catastrophic failure. They know it, and thats why they haven't.
        
        The rest of the clueless masses need to figure it out. If the infinite good (digital recordings) cannot be protected by increasing the pricing on those buying limited goods (the actual CD) then the model is failing.
        
        Would any of us pay $32 per CD in order to help the RIAA recover costs on fictional 'lost sales' due to piracy? I certainly would not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeremy, 16 Dec 2008 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Kind of meant that part as a joke. Personally I think they charge too much for cd's at current price. I can't remember the last cd I bought for full price anymore. Id go to a pawn shop well before I tried hitting up the stores. Hrmm...maybe the RIAA's next targets after wiping everyone else out of money? Afterall, they dont make money off of used cd sales either. Wonder where else they could hit for money??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        lordmorgul, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Afterall, they dont make money off of used cd sales either."
        
        Unfortunately, you are probably foretelling the future here. The online gaming market has already seen several changes that are directed specifically at eliminating the secondary markets for the game. "Spore" for instance was sold with DRM that is deliberately designed to do that, not to prevent theft or piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Manther, 16 Dec 2008 @ 12:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, those price rollbacks are really making up for that shoplifting...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wrotecongress, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:47am
  
  Re: hah
  Because your Congressmen/woman would actualy do something about it other than ignore it in hopes to get re-elected. The second anytype of bill against the RIAA hits the floor or is even mention Warner would have lobbyists all over it with "gifts".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:09am

Dollar Auction?
I think the Dollar Auction applies to the RIAA and downloaders. Neither is going to quite until they win no matter the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHARRGARBL, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:18am

liek mah moosic skils?
Keep drinking that koolaid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 10:55am

this will continue until they fold. Boycott the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy, 16 Dec 2008 @ 11:14am

wait...huh? why are we charging the schools anyways?
Tuition is high enough as it is, does the RIAA need to add to this really? Are they just trying to make it harder for children to become educated so that they can continue to push them around with lawsuits? ..and why do they just assume its all college students that are the problem? Its more than that, and they shouldn't be allowed to target one group as a result of their problems. They're charging the students based on the POSSIBILITY that they may steal. I can't stand how rediculous this whole thing has become.. Simply out of hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lordmorgul, 16 Dec 2008 @ 11:56am

Taxation without representation...
College students have no money to buy numerous albums. The claim that a fair and just method of dealing with piracy is taxing the college students (all of them) in order to pay for the stolen merchandise that the few steal is absolute foolishness.

This is one more area where the RIAA just refused to not admit that one stolen/pirated album does NOT TRANSLATE into one lost sale. They know this for truth, it is truth they are manipulating to get more money from people who would not have chosen to spend their money on those products. Many college students pirate music they would not, or could not, buy.

That realization makes the purpose of this scheme obvious: by taxing the masses without representation they intend to get more money than they would have through normal sales to the few. The rest of the masses would not have purchased the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re: Taxation without representation...
  I will remember your first point the next time I go shopping and demand that the incremental portion of my bill associated with shoplifting be removed before I pay. And before a lecture on theft v. infringement, they each nevertheless embrace a similar concept...taking something that is not yours without paying for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Taxation without representation...
    "I will remember your first point the next time I go shopping and demand that the incremental portion of my bill associated with shoplifting be removed before I pay."
    
    You should do exactly that. I have no faith that you will get a satisfactory response, but it would be fair if you did get those charges removed.
    
    As for "a lecture on theft v. infringement" you know very well the two do not correlate perfectly due to finite versus infinite goods. Someone stealing CDs out of a store versus stealing clothing is a direct comparison, and the CD prices have probably risen to adjust for that just as clothing prices have. The major difference there, is that a CD is not being stolen when someone pirates digital files; whether or not it is taking something you did not pay for, it has a very different effect on the industry's bottom line.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BK, 16 Dec 2008 @ 2:02pm

I have seen many peers get sued by the RIAA at my university. It's absolutely absurd how they address the issue. Basically, the student receives a letter demanding a $5,000 settlement or threats to pursue even more money in court. In the end the student has a decision, pay $5,000 to the RIAA to settle out or pay just as much and perhaps even more fighting it in court.

Just a shitty way to do business and attack students.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:54pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, because the students didn't do anything wrong. Stupid RIAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps you have been sitting in a dark corner with your eyes and ears shut... but there are documented cases where the person being sued actually DID NOTHING WRONG. The RIAA has done it an appreciable number of times and many cases are undocumented because unknowing parents/guardians would settle out of court and out of ignorance rather than fight this behemoth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 4:39pm

Gov should bailout students from faceless industry to keep them happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 6:34pm

I throw my shoes at the media scumbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NoNameGiven, 16 Dec 2008 @ 6:46pm

It's a fine Luke !!!
I thought a tax was levied upon the public in an attempt to provide a useful service, product, etc. Therefore this is not a tax as there is nothing gained by those paying.
It is a fine based upon the presumption that those asked to pay have indeed commited infringement. Where is the due process? People are falsely accused everyday, but they have recourse. In this case, the fine is made part of your participation in an activity, be it higher education or accessing the internet. You are guilty by association, and I call bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 16 Dec 2008 @ 7:18pm

Its too late.
There is no point in the RIAA/MPAA trying to come up with any business model at this point. We are not interested in cooperation, we are at this point only interested in watching you crumble and the music industry along with you. You can make what laws you like, and sue your handfuls of poor folk, but in the end you will prove to be ineffective and useless. I would not buy an album now on principle alone. NOT ONE CENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPBer, 16 Dec 2008 @ 7:23pm

What Music?
It's all free now thanx to the RIAA.

Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with meeeeee!

www.thepiratebay.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gene, 17 Dec 2008 @ 6:38am

riaa and directv
Directv and the RIAA have sued many they knew were innocent. Where people were innocent, the suits were a fraud. Law enforcement should have stepped in to stop innocent people from being sued. Those innocent people need to do what Justice did. Law enforcement ignored justice in these suits. People need to ignore justice the next time they are a juror or a witness. Jury nullification will ignore Justice the next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnsmith, 18 Dec 2008 @ 8:37am

Neither the riaa NOR warner music own a damn thing that anyone needs to pay for. If I buy a car and allow anybody and everybody to use, should I also pay a surcharge for letting them use it?
The riaa does not make music and therefore owns none, and as well the warner group cannot tell the world much less the US what they can or cannot do with a plastic disc that was payed for.
In the warner group and the riaa's eyes they would like everyone to pay for every single copy AND every time it gets played worldwide!! good fucking luck db's.
Unfortunately for them they are not dictators and the internet is not something they, or anyone, much less the pos's that call themselves gov. in the US can control.
So take your laws and shove them as far as you can up your you know what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2009 @ 12:39pm

riaa assholes overquantify the value of their crap, self-grandizing behaviour will be your death, thank gawd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]