Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Download A Song -- Lose Your Loan

By Larisa Mann, WireTap. Posted December 8, 2007.


A bill in the works could cut off federal funding for financial aid if universities don't stop their students from filesharing.
Advertisement

Glory be, the big copyright owners have found yet another way to threaten students' access to education -- this time by going for the biggest support of higher education -- federal funding.

On Nov 22 the House Education and Labor Committee approved H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act (COAA). The name sounds like something everyone can support -- but the devil is truly in the details.

Page 411 of this 747-page bill is "Section 494(A): CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION" wherein the bill's meaning takes a serious detour from its title. To prevent college students from illegally accessing copyrighted material, the section says all schools shall (when you see the word "shall" in a law, it's a requirement, not a suggestion):

1) Have "a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property" and

2) Have "a plan to explore technology based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

The craziest thing about this is that noncompliant schools would lose all their federal funding, for all their students. No more Pell Grants. No more federal financial aid. No more student loans. This is not just draconian punishment for students who break the law, this punishes all students at that institution even if they did nothing!

Beyond that, both requirements actually work against the point of the bill itself -- implementation would likely raise school fees.

If a school requires students to sign up with an "alternative system," this means (for now) a for-profit company. Who pays for the subscription? And if a school has to use filtering software, who's going to pay for that? If schools have to prove compliance, they will have to make it mandatory -- folding it into school fees is the simplest way. How does that contribute to "Affordability?"

There's no good reason for fee hikes because the requirements could never solve the "problem." Let's back up: what's the problem and why are schools being forced to solve it?

If the problem is illegal (and there is legal) downloading and uploading and its effect on the industry, why are colleges being required to stop it? The RIAA and the MPAA often state that college networks are major sites of infringement -- but their own numbers don't back that up. The MPAA's own estimation is that 18.4 percent of copyright infringers overall are college students, who are responsible for 44 percent of lost revenue from copyright infringement.

Calculating "lost revenue" is tricky -- how to calculate what would have been paid if someone hadn't downloaded a song? What if it made them buy an album, or merchandise? What if downloading was easier than ripping a paid-for CD, LP or cassette?

But sticking with the MPAA's semi-bogus numbers, educational technology nonprofit Educause points out that "since less than 20 percent of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4 percent of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9 percent of the losses. Over 91 percent of the claimed losses are on commercial networks." Get that: 4 out of every 100 infringers (even trusting the industry assessment of infringement, which usually is not too carefully defined) are on college networks. And yet this is so important that Congress will subvert federal education funding?

Further evidence of this entertainment industry power-grab is described in a letter against Section 494(A) signed by the President of Stanford University, the Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, the Vice President of Yale and the President of Penn State, which describes how representatives of the entertainment industry would be the ones to provide the data identifying which schools are "violators." Punishment would be based on these numbers, which would put the Secretary of Education basically under the direction of the entertainment industry! (PDF)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: file sharing, music, financial aid, college

Larisa Mann writes about technology, media and law for WireTap, studies Jurisprudence and Social Policy at U.C. Berkeley and djs under the name Ripley.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
influence peddling is an imprisonable criminal offence in many jurisdictions
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 8, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is very obvious that something odious and obnoxious is going on here.

Has corruption been "normalized"? It would seem so.

Will the institutions cave in or challenge the indefensible parts of the legislation? I should think that it would be less expensive for the colleges and universities to get together and go to court than to figure out how to comply.

On the other hand, the legislation actually presents an opportunity for corruption in universities: someone could walk away with a bag of swag for awarding the contract.

Do the universities want to attract this kind of suspicion, plus be involved in illegal and unconstitutional group punishment?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: Scientz on Dec 8, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is hilarious . . . I can't promise you funding, but you American students should come on up to the University of Toronto. We have the third or fourth library in North America, a beautiful downtown campus, 50,000 students of every gender, race, colour, and creed and some of the world's best profs. Plus we have an active student body who keeps the corporatization of school at bay. Anybody want 800+ mp3s?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Posted by: psychochurch
» Done and done Posted by: chaoslegs
a matter of time
Posted by: schnoggi on Dec 8, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's really a question of when not if, until some body snaps and drags one of the RIAA lawyers out of their house and beats the shit out of them, or in some way scares these corrupt bastards to where they knock this insanity off. Dan Glickman is building up bad karma points by the bucketload, and I hope they come back and bite him hard, what a stupid stupid whore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a matter of time Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
My note to Miller as if it matters
Posted by: Newtopian on Dec 8, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George.Miller@mail.house.gov
Section 494(A)

Dear Sir,
I am a musician. Over the last ten years I've watched what was once a vital and independent music world disappear. It wasn't file sharing alone that did it. The exploitational practices of the record business, their failure to properly serve both their suppliers and consumers had much to do with it, and so did the extinction of all ages music clubs across America. All the great bands of American rock and roll since the beginning have emerged from all ages scenes. But those clubs, like independent record stores and radio stations, could not survive the predatory practices of corporations like Clear Channel and Ticketmaster.

One of the reasons I most lament the loss of the all ages scene is the way it nourished culture by providing young artists, musicians, and writers a place to get started free of the pressures of corporate career shaping. Many of these clubs were like alternate schools where zines were printed, art showings organized, and community service practiced. At Koo's in Santa Ana I peeled potatoes to share with the homeless. At riot grrrl shows we collected clothes and supplies for homes for battered women. Between sets by bands you'd see all the kids sitting cross-legged on the ground reading. Instead of being hit on by drunks between sets I was asked to explain my lyrics.

Yes when file sharing exploded beginning with Napster my CD sales plummeted from thousands to almost zero. Yes I get letters from fans who ask me to please email them a hundred of my songs because they left them on mom's computer.

But I don't care about that. It's up to me to figure out how to make money. It's up to me to take this new terrain with all its opportunities and treat it the way my pioneer ancestors treated the frontier. Yes the geography has changed. But I welcome that.

Please don't deny education to kids over something as vague as file sharing. Look at the tiny fraction of musicians who actually make money at playing music. Look at the obscene wealth of the heads of the corporations who exploit them. Give us a chance to find new ways of doing things instead of setting up these electric fences to protect the equivalent of robber barons.

Most kids aren't thieves. Most practice loyalty where they feel it has been earned. Section 494(A) has the best of intentions but you, the ersatz cavalry, are rescuing the wrong victims. Instead, protect the kids, and protect we the musicians by opening the airwaves that belong to we the people. Help us break the stranglehold of these unscrupulous corporations instead of making it stronger.
sincerely,
Tamra Spivey

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sympathy for the Devil?
Posted by: jaby on Dec 8, 2007 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I whole-heartedly disagree with pulling federal student aid for schools who don't adopt this policy...I have to say, these college kids and their illegal downloading is disgusting.

They are stealing. They are taking things that don't belong to them. Oh, but they are stealing from record companies...so what? It is still stealing. You can't pick GWB's pocket just because he is a bad guy, him being a bad guy doesn't make it ok to steal from him.

And it's not like music files are prohibitively expensive either. Itunes, $.99 per song. With Emusic, you can download 100 songs for $25 per month (that's a quarter per song, people).Given the enjoyment that people get from music, I don't see this as a huge price to pay.

Just because it is digital doesn't mean that you're entitled to it without payment. I think this is actually what it all comes down to, the record company's entitlement versus the college kids (sense of) entitlement. While the record companies may be using strong-arm and possibly illegal tactics, they are the ones in the moral right on this issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Which is exactly my point. Posted by: abbadon2007
» File sharing isn't stealing Posted by: CUnknown
No alternative
Posted by: Cwood on Dec 8, 2007 4:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a college student, and let me just remind anyone who might have forgotten: we have no money. Collectively, we're a pitifully poor group. What money we do have goes toward college expenses, most notably the tremendous gouging that is books. We can't afford to shell out twenty dollars for a CD at the store, and with the perception that its for the benefit of some corporate fatcat (no matter how true or false that really is) nobody feels like its justified. We aren't going to stop consuming music, thats for sure, so unless prices come down, there's little chance that we'll stop downloading music.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How pretentious Posted by: CUnknown
» Great Rationalization Posted by: gellero
» PROXY SERVER Posted by: gellero
» RE: PROXY SERVER Posted by: abbadon2007
Digital copying over college networks
Posted by: ahollman on Dec 8, 2007 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the diminishing minority who consider most digital copying to be intellectual property theft. Re commercial music, if someone created it, and is selling it, those who want it should either pay the seller's price or not buy it. To take it for free is theft.

The following facts *don't* change that position: 1) Digital data is is copied quickly and flawlessly at a copying cost of (almost) zero, 2) corporations exploit musicians and monopolize the publicly-owned airwaves, which they have purchased for a (metaphorically) a song, 3) students with limited money would not choose to pay current prices for commercial music, 4) just as commercial music survived home taping; it will survive digital copying too.

The fact that digital data *can* be copied doesn't always justify doing so, anymore than the fact that tangible goods *can* be shoplifted justifies shoplifting.

Corporations exploit musicians and dominate the airwaves. Neither justifies theft; two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. In fact, to say that because corporations exploit musicians, it's OK for their fans to exploit them too, is the ultimate hypocrisy.

The idea that illicit copying by those who can't (or won't) afford the stated price cost its producer nothing is a flimsy justification for theft. Someone who is starving may claim the desperation of hunger for stealing food, but even that case acknowledges that the act is theft. No one has ever died for lack of music.

The claim that since home taping didn't kill music, neither will digital copying, is a prediction that may be true or may be false. It is *not* a justification.

My own hypocrisy and my own dog in this fight:

Hypocrisy: When I was in college, I taped old folk music. My rationalization then was that these LPs were out of print and unobtainable; therefore I cost no one in copying them. That ignored the fact that by not buying them when they *were* available, I *did* cost the musician. I was honest enough to realize even then that it was a flimsy rationalization.

As a serious amateur musician, several years ago, I would have loved to make my own album. I didn't. Why should I, when, after fronting all the costs, I would have had multiple copies ripped off for every one I sold? This is another compelling reason for not stealing music; I'm sure that there are many who, like me, choose not to produce their music because they expect that not only will they not make money, they may not even recoup the cost of producing it. The magnitude of this cost is difficult to estimate; how can one calculate the cost of action not taken? Who knows to what extent fans are depiving themselves of the very music they want?

Aram Hollman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» For the love Posted by: CUnknown
» RE: Producing art Posted by: Sushi
making downloading illegal is like criminalizing marijuana...
Posted by: lexicon on Dec 8, 2007 8:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, let me note that I am commenting as someone who is part of the music industry...I very much have a stake in this.

Like it or not, Digital media formats have caused a fundamental change in the way music can be marketed and sold.

Now, all you free-marketeers, listen up. This is for you. All you folks who think that the markets are best left to themselves to determine price, wallow in this post, for you have bought and paid for it, earned it.

See, there's a very fundamental free-markets concept at play in all of this, a very simple "economics 101" concept, that always gets mislaid when this topic comes up: Music is essentially "worthless", always has been, and always will be.

Remember, I say that as a music composer, someone who writes music.

The fact that money has changed hands in the marketplace for music, for the last, oh, 70 years, is because of something called "false scarcity". Scarcity is the core, guiding principle of price in the market. When a product is scarce (i.e. less of it is available than what is in demand) the price goes up. When a product is not scarce, the price goes down.

That's simple stuff. "Air" costs nothing, because, well, there's plenty of it. More than we can use. Plus, nobody's figured out how to bottle it up and make us pay for it.

Well, music is, in a very real sense, like air.

For the most part, most anyone can have a tune in their head, and most of us can pick up some musical instrument (or pots and pans!) and bang out some music. when it's in the air, its there, for our ears.

Now, clearly, some of us are better at making music than others. I write better songs than the next guy, but I'd certainly rather listen to someone else play piano than myself. We recognize that there's an aesthetic difference among writers and players...and we tend to want to avail ourselves of the better writers and players, when we can.

So, the music industry figured out a way to do just that...it figured out how to put together physical copies of music: first, sheet music,piano rolls, then wax cylinders, then vinyl...and so, the typical consumer didn't HAVE to entertain themselves with their own singing, or piano playing, the consumer could PURCHASE some music.

Now, that music really wasn't different, intrinsically, from the music they could make on their own. It still consisted of arranged patters of soundwaves that stimulated the eardrum.

In other words, the "Thing" that we were all buying was the MUSIC, not the physical copy-thing that the music was contained in.

When you buy, say, a loaf of bread...the thing that you're buying is, well, bread. You're not buying the IDEA of bread. Or better perhaps, when you buy milk, you're getting a container, but you aren't really buying the container, you're buying the liquid inside. You have to have a container, you're FORCED to use it, but it's not the thing you're buying. Unless, of course, you want to carry the milk home from the store, cupped in your hands.

So, the PHYSICAL COPY of the music isn't really the thing that you're buying, at all! The thing that you're buying is the ideas inside.

And the ONLY factor in making that music cost something, is that there's an inherent ease in controlling the physical copies. In other words, the music had to be contained in a physical copy-thing.

So, for the past 70 years, the music industry has not bothered at all to figure out how to sell MUSIC, because the sheer stupid fact of it is that it is hard to actually make your own physical copy of the music, for less money than it actually costs to obtain the copy from the music industry.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...continued
Posted by: lexicon on Dec 8, 2007 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF you think this is bullshit, then think for a second about the actual contracts that record labels have with musicians. The record companies pay the musicians scant pennies on the dollar for the music, then charge the consumers big dollars for the physical copies.

Is this because the record companies are assholes? Let's not go there...but its really because those contracts represent the REAL "value" of the music. Pennies, not dollars.

So, today, or rather, some couple years ago, it became possible to make a pretty good quality physical copy of music for an incremental marginal cost of ZERO. You had to have a computer, but if you already had one for other purposes, then making a copy of music, or a thousand copies, cost exactly ZERO.

Now, Let's look back at those record companies. they paid pennies to musicians for the music, and then essentially provided: 1)physical copies; 2) promotion; and 3) distribution of those copies. Now, the "Digital Revolution" has made two out of three of those value propositions moot, null, and void. In other words, the very existence of digital has in essence rendered the entire value proposition of a record company irrelevant, and the internet has essentially rendered the promotional value of the record company moot, too.

In other words, the "scarcity" of music, that allowed companies to charge money for it and actually get paid that money, was a FALSE SCARCITY. THere wasn't ANY scarcity in music...just in COPIES of music. And if there's ANYTHING that's true about free markets, its that false scarcity will be extinguished, eventually, and in this case, that was accomplished by the inexorable march of technology.

There is no longer any fundamental price driver available based on controlling physical copies of music. That "false scarcity" has been erased.

And you know what? Consumers have discovered that, while they still don't prefer to listen to themselves sing and would rather hear a good singer, the simple fact is that there are a LOT more great singers out there, than the 125 or so that the major music labels offer us.

The labels are being bitten in the ass by the free market, not by downloading.

Now, this post is, again, by someone in the music industry, a writer who stands to lose because of downloading. But, this post is about recognizing the reality...that you can't sell air. This post doesn't offer a solution, except to the extent that recognizing that the horse is out, and the barn has burned, is the first step toward facing tomorrow.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ...continued Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: ...continued Posted by: UP58
» RE: ...continued Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: ...continued Posted by: abbadon2007
» ASCAP, BMI, the mob Posted by: lamar
COULD SOMEONE FIX THIS SITE BEFORE MIDNIGHT, 16 HRS IS LONG ENOUGH
Posted by: Turiye on Dec 8, 2007 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/c

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How far will the RIAA go?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Dec 9, 2007 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we going to hear about a bill to implant chips in our brains to prevent downloading next?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wellcome to Amerika Posted by: donl51
Brought to you by the same people
Posted by: photon's feather on Dec 9, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brought to you by the same people who refuse to investigate cases of college students being defrauded, and then being expected to pay back their loans, no matter that they did not get the education for which they paid, or that they were subjected to medical fraud, with real and lasting consequeces, at their home university. (Yes, I mean me, but I am hardly alone.)

That's our government: protect big business, screw the little guy. Face it, the only people that have rights are those that can afford to bribe legislators - I mean make large campaign contributions. (And don't forget: in the US, corporations are people, too!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats bought and paid for by Hollywood
Posted by: lamar on Dec 9, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's sad that the Democratic party is bought and paid for by Hollywood that it would support such horrendous legislation. That's right folks, this is Democratic legislation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bien fait pour vos gueules
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Dec 9, 2007 4:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is what you get when you live in a country run by a bipartisan system (what a fucking joke) corrupted by MERCHANTS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rove and Swiftboats
Posted by: lamar on Dec 9, 2007 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And all of you who call it "stealing", "theft" or "piracy" should be ashamed of yourselfs. That's no different than Bush calling torture "heightened interrogation." I think you people are wrong, but at least we can have a decent discussion. When you turn into Karl Rove and start making up new definitions for words and try and swiftboat the discussion, I lose respect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: donl51
» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: lamar
» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: lamar
» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: lamar
» RE: ove and Swiftboats Posted by: EncinoM
For those that consider this theft
Posted by: chaoslegs on Dec 10, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it theft to make a mixed tape, back when that took time and effort, for your friend?

Is it theft when you sell a book, cd, or dvd to a used store? That resell by the used store does not generate a single dime for the original creator or license holder of the music, which is the same issue of digitally sharing.

See the problem that a lot of us have with DRM and the RIAA and MPAA is the total control they want to exert on things we have purchased. When I buy something, is it not mine to use as I see fit with DRM. Not according to them, and this is where the backlash comes from.

I think people would consider a good middle ground on this, but that is not acceptable to RIAA and MPAA, so we get these draconian measures. Fortunately Radiohead is trying to break the stranglehold by going directly to the consumer.

I don't download via P2P or through any of the legitimate conduits that have been created. I buy hard CDs and I rip them myself. These keeps their dirty DRM paws off of my item.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry to be the bearer of bad news Posted by: abbadon2007
hah
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Dec 10, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
theft or not, the sharing/warez technology is well and alive, we just dont care about what's your opinion on the matter.

Corporations dont bother with ethics and so do we. Lets see who will ruin the other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oh yeah..
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Dec 10, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I should add that we, the pirates, are the product of your corruption, you greed and your selfishness.

Enjoy the ride.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to me, these latest comments are the most interesting...arrg ye pirates!
Posted by: lexicon on Dec 10, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...interesting that the general situation-at-hand actually breeds this sort of "vigilantism" or "robin-hood" mentality.

This sense that its a justified counterbalance to a type of tyranny...

Sort of like having to buy bread from the King's baker...and a loaf of bread costs half a weeks' wages...and so of course, up spring the "rogue breadmakers" who are outlaws and give the people bread.

(or, perhaps to stay in vogue with the vast majority of progressive blog posters these days, "I mean't of coarse, rouge breadmakers".

I personally prefer vermillion or even will go with a mauve breadmaker...but rouge will do in a pinch)

Anyway, I got distracted there for a second. How about that...this idea that these are a form of "freedom fighter" against tyranny? There's even a bit of a 'swashbuckler' feel to it...a dashing, daring, taunting, 'for the sport of it' air...

interesting.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

read lexicon
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 10, 2007 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lexicon has the most relevant commnets here... does Alternet still do a best of piece? lexicon's got my vote. My brother, who works for the big bad librarian corporadoes, has often waxed at length along these similar lines. I put more weight on their angle than anything else.

I add only this, that the RIAA and the actions of the anti-filesharing gangs have done more damage to fair-use doctrines, physical and legal damage, than anything else. Fair use is just one of several copyright nuances that were intended to be the exceptions to the rule that allowed society to gain and maintain access to and use of art. But the non-artist librarians have hijacked it all so they can make something on nothing.

Okay, so back to the WGA picket lines, matey... to fight the librarian bastards who still participate in making the artifact that I dream up. If only I can get them to pay me fer it.... Garrr....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They should know by now...
Posted by: adp3d on Dec 10, 2007 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...You can't stop Rock 'n Roll....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The best music is STILL freely available
Posted by: thelostsailor on Dec 11, 2007 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The internet is the best thing to ever happen to music...for a band that plays live shows. The best music, in my mind and many other's, is that which is played live, creating a unique organic experience. Many can recall CD 'imports' being sold in record shops- most of these live recordings were stolen by random individuals and mass produced for huge profits, in different countries where the law allows such things to happen. Then, once made, it's legal to bring them into the US, making the whole import scene a total and complete scam where most of the artists never see one penny.
The advent of the internet has brought all these 'import' recordings to file sharing sites for absolutely free, destroying much of the 'stolen recording import' market.
These recordings along with so many other live recordings are available for free and legal.

I remain totally against the distribution and file sharing of studio albums on the internet. The studio album is a different beast that is like stealing a painting from the gallery to me. The internet brings great freedom and a wealth of free media. To allow it to continue that way, we get into the need for that endangered beast called ethics. Unfortunately, so many think everything should be free, just because they paid for an internet connection or something. Kind of like 'everything should be priced like Walmart prices it for or they won't get my business'.

Leave the studio recordings alone- buy them, then supplement those with free live goodies from sites like this great one:
bt.etree.org
and donate to these sites for making all of that available for free...

As for the record companies, Radiohead proved that they are endangered and not even needed anymore, putting more profits in artist's hands. Despite headlines saying that most people took the album for free, the money donated was substantial, with no record company involved. MOre importantly, the experiment showed that it works and is the future, with no more record exec needed to collect a big salary.
The reality of this all, a band needs to play lots of live shows to 'make it' anymore- but for me, that's the true nature of great musical art, when it's foaming from someone's brain in a unique, spontaneous, and beautiful way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimme a break
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Dec 11, 2007 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
whats the logic behind people making millions out of air vibrations ? I do a much more useful job and I dont make millions so no I dont feel any remorse when I'm downloading their songs, dont worry even if 99% people would download their work, they would be still much more richer than you and I. So no I wont give my hard earned money so that they can pay their cocaine and pimps. And fuck your ethics, to hell with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gimme a break Posted by: UP58
» More lies from UP58 Posted by: lamar
oh and btw
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Dec 11, 2007 7:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to America, the only land where the poor defends the rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why many still DL
Posted by: CollD on Dec 12, 2007 8:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't i like itunes and napster? The great invention of the 'MP4." If I am going to pay for a song, i sure as heck don't want the copyright restrictions on it so i can't play it on my ipod, or burn it to a disk. If these people had their way, they would make you pay each time you listened to the song.

"illegal" downloading today is like the mix tape or VHS copying of yesterday.

All these lawsuits, and what is really going on? Technology has changed and we don't need to middle man anymore, charging us $12-20 for a CD with maybe 3 good songs on it and hardly compensating the artist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]