Obey the MPAA or lose your federal funding

[Blitzkommando]

New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

The U.S. House of Representatives bill (PDF), which was introduced late Friday by top Democratic politicians, could give the movie and music industries a new revenue stream by pressuring schools into signing up for monthly subscription services such as Ruckus and Napster. Ruckus is advertising-supported, and Napster charges a monthly fee per student.

You know, I hope it does pass and that the colleges refuse to abide by it. The public outcry would be so incredible that it might finally kill off the RIAA and MPAA. And, hey, maybe even the morons that proposed the bill in the first place. I've had it with both of those associations and this is just another example of them shooting themselves in the foot. Or face as it may be.

News.com (http://www.news.com/Democrats-Colleges-must-police-copyright%2C-or-else/2100-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=st.prev)

Broadband Reports (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dems-Colleges-Should-Be-Copyright-Cops-89375)

Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/bad-government/new-bill-would-deny-schools-funding-if-they-dont-comply-with-the-riaa-321541.php)

[Saner]

the things they do for money...

[Shadowpawn]

Isn’t that unconstitutional? I mean you can’t force universities to make students use “alternatives” to P2P. For one you assume that ALL students used p2p for pirating music or that ALL students have access to p2p technology. Seconding it assumes that universities are responsible for the students actions both on and off campus. Third it threatens to revoke aid to students on the basis that they use p2p to pirate music. Forgive me and my rhetoric but I thought student aid was given on a by need basis and the merit of the academic worth of the student. Pirating and academic have nothing to with each (unless we’re talking about term papers…I don’t THINK we’re talking about term papers) so what right do they have to, in a sense, bully schools in to playing the role of big brother to music hungry young adults?

This won’t pass.

[Randomness]

On 2007-11-12 13:44, Shadowpawn wrote:
Isn’t that unconstitutional? I mean you can’t force universities to make students use “alternatives” to P2P. For one you assume that ALL students used p2p for pirating music or that ALL students have access to p2p technology. Seconding it assumes that universities are responsible for the students actions both on and off campus. Third it threatens to revoke aid to students on the basis that they use p2p to pirate music. Forgive me and my rhetoric but I thought student aid was given on a by need basis and the merit of the academic worth of the student. Pirating and academic have nothing to with each (unless we’re talking about term papers…I don’t THINK we’re talking about term papers) so what right do they have to, in a sense, bully schools in to playing the role of big brother to music hungry young adults?

This won’t pass.




If it does (And given that it makes big industries profit, corruption may well cause that to happen), it'll probably die in the courts anyways.

[astuarlen]

Well, several universities are already acting as the **AA's bitches by aiding them in their extortion schemes--I mean, sorry, helping give those bad, bad students a wonderful chance to reach reasonable generous settlements with the **AAs. This, of course, grosses me out on a higher level (lower level?). Ironically, my university already tries to get students to use Ruckus.

[DarthRuin]

On 2007-11-12 13:44, Shadowpawn wrote:
Isn’t that unconstitutional? I mean you can’t force universities to make students use “alternatives” to P2P. For one you assume that ALL students used p2p for pirating music or that ALL students have access to p2p technology. Seconding it assumes that universities are responsible for the students actions both on and off campus. Third it threatens to revoke aid to students on the basis that they use p2p to pirate music. Forgive me and my rhetoric but I thought student aid was given on a by need basis and the merit of the academic worth of the student. Pirating and academic have nothing to with each (unless we’re talking about term papers…I don’t THINK we’re talking about term papers) so what right do they have to, in a sense, bully schools in to playing the role of big brother to music hungry young adults?

This won’t pass.




The patriot act voided the constitution. Enjoy your totalitarian government.

[Sinue_v2]

What's pathetic is that collage students are often notoriously broke as hell. They can't afford many luxuries like music and movies in the quantities that the **AA wants, or claims that they're downloading. So either way, the **AA is going to be losing money bigtime. By cutting off funding, all they're doing is ensuring that collage students who pirate don't get a proper education, in which case they're not going to be making (ideally) the decent wages which would allow them to legitimately BUY music and movies. And they're still going to pirate this shit out of campus as well.

But, I guess this doesn't really apply to me much. I don't watch movies, and all the music I download is live shows from bands which encourage and sponsor bootlegging. Artists like Jack Johnson and Ben Harper are only famous today because of the huge bootleg scene which spread their music.

By the way - I could give a damn about Radiohead as a band, but how did that little experiment of their go where they released their latest album on the internet for a free download and relied on "donations" from people who enjoyed the album - effectively cutting the record industry almost completely out of the loop. I'd love to see it work and catch on, perhaps finally putting the RIAA out of buisness by buying your music directly from the artists rather than some big-name label.

[Zael]

Wow... just wow. That's absolute bullshit there.

[DarthRuin]

On 2007-11-12 20:42, Sinue_v2 wrote:
What's pathetic is that collage students are often notoriously broke as hell. They can't afford many luxuries like music and movies in the quantities that the **AA wants, or claims that they're downloading. So either way, the **AA is going to be losing money bigtime. By cutting off funding, all they're doing is ensuring that collage students who pirate don't get a proper education, in which case they're not going to be making (ideally) the decent wages which would allow them to legitimately BUY music and movies. And they're still going to pirate this shit out of campus as well.

But, I guess this doesn't really apply to me much. I don't watch movies, and all the music I download is live shows from bands which encourage and sponsor bootlegging. Artists like Jack Johnson and Ben Harper are only famous today because of the huge bootleg scene which spread their music.

By the way - I could give a damn about Radiohead as a band, but how did that little experiment of their go where they released their latest album on the internet for a free download and relied on "donations" from people who enjoyed the album - effectively cutting the record industry almost completely out of the loop. I'd love to see it work and catch on, perhaps finally putting the RIAA out of buisness by buying your music directly from the artists rather than some big-name label.



I want tp preface this by saying I don't listen to the Radio, and I do steal music online.

The record labels do much more than just release albums. They push the band onto the radio, advertise, and produce the tours. As long as they're still making money off of those three things, they will never just disappear.

[Sgt_Shligger]

On 2007-11-12 21:04, DarthRuin wrote:

On 2007-11-12 20:42, Sinue_v2 wrote:
What's pathetic is that collage students are often notoriously broke as hell. They can't afford many luxuries like music and movies in the quantities that the **AA wants, or claims that they're downloading. So either way, the **AA is going to be losing money bigtime. By cutting off funding, all they're doing is ensuring that collage students who pirate don't get a proper education, in which case they're not going to be making (ideally) the decent wages which would allow them to legitimately BUY music and movies. And they're still going to pirate this shit out of campus as well.

But, I guess this doesn't really apply to me much. I don't watch movies, and all the music I download is live shows from bands which encourage and sponsor bootlegging. Artists like Jack Johnson and Ben Harper are only famous today because of the huge bootleg scene which spread their music.

By the way - I could give a damn about Radiohead as a band, but how did that little experiment of their go where they released their latest album on the internet for a free download and relied on "donations" from people who enjoyed the album - effectively cutting the record industry almost completely out of the loop. I'd love to see it work and catch on, perhaps finally putting the RIAA out of buisness by buying your music directly from the artists rather than some big-name label.



I want tp preface this by saying I don't listen to the Radio, and I do steal music online.

The record labels do much more than just release albums. They push the band onto the radio, advertise, and produce the tours. As long as they're still making money off of those three things, they will never just disappear.



But you must admit it's an obvious fact that the record industry doesn't make as much money anymore. The majority of new music that comes out gradually gets worse. . . I can barely listen to the radio anymore.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

I would expect that this will be passed. It's ludicrous, but I'll be passed. On the plus side, from the sounds of it, university students will be getting free music, legally. It is absurd enough, that I would advise everyone who is concerned about it, to contact their Congressmen (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/) to complain about it.

[DarthRuin]

On 2007-11-12 21:06, Sgt_Shligger wrote:

On 2007-11-12 21:04, DarthRuin wrote:

On 2007-11-12 20:42, Sinue_v2 wrote:
What's pathetic is that collage students are often notoriously broke as hell. They can't afford many luxuries like music and movies in the quantities that the **AA wants, or claims that they're downloading. So either way, the **AA is going to be losing money bigtime. By cutting off funding, all they're doing is ensuring that collage students who pirate don't get a proper education, in which case they're not going to be making (ideally) the decent wages which would allow them to legitimately BUY music and movies. And they're still going to pirate this shit out of campus as well.

But, I guess this doesn't really apply to me much. I don't watch movies, and all the music I download is live shows from bands which encourage and sponsor bootlegging. Artists like Jack Johnson and Ben Harper are only famous today because of the huge bootleg scene which spread their music.

By the way - I could give a damn about Radiohead as a band, but how did that little experiment of their go where they released their latest album on the internet for a free download and relied on "donations" from people who enjoyed the album - effectively cutting the record industry almost completely out of the loop. I'd love to see it work and catch on, perhaps finally putting the RIAA out of buisness by buying your music directly from the artists rather than some big-name label.



I want tp preface this by saying I don't listen to the Radio, and I do steal music online.

The record labels do much more than just release albums. They push the band onto the radio, advertise, and produce the tours. As long as they're still making money off of those three things, they will never just disappear.



But you must admit it's an obvious fact that the record industry doesn't make as much money anymore. The majority of new music that comes out gradually gets worse. . . I can barely listen to the radio anymore.



I stopped listening around 3 years ago when I realized it was a lost cause. When I do turn on the radio I listen to the local Pacific network station. It's radio for peace, and when they do play music *which is rare), they play indie music only.

[Sinue_v2]

They push the band onto the radio, advertise, and produce the tours.

The internet is making radio less and less relevant in showcasing new music to the public, and the labels don't do anything that artists themselves can't do. Advertising, again, is irrelevant when you can download music for free and share it. Tours (which is where artists make most of their revenue, both on ticket sales and merchandise) can also be setup by the artists rather than the label. As said, if Radiohead's scheme can actually turn into a lucrative and successful venture - that's all the more money for artists to buy their own equiptment, organize their own tours (which can be, and is, supplimented by corperate sponsors), and advertise themselves.

In a way, I see this as turning the music industry into an even greater free market which is shaped by consumer choice rather than by industry heads deciding what a band puts out, where it's advertised, and "shaping" their image for them. The record industry is just a sales tool, and by removing them you free artists to more say in the shape their own image and music. It would also, hopefully, get rid of the pre-made generic radio bands put together and pushed solely as a means to generate cash - and replace them with true artists. It would (ideally) put the focus back on people making music for the love of the music, and making money from that - rather than just using music as a tool to make money.

[DarthRuin]

On 2007-11-12 21:32, Sinue_v2 wrote:

They push the band onto the radio, advertise, and produce the tours.

The internet is making radio less and less relevant in showcasing new music to the public, and the labels don't do anything that artists themselves can't do. Advertising, again, is irrelevant when you can download music for free and share it. Tours (which is where artists make most of their revenue, both on ticket sales and merchandise) can also be setup by the artists rather than the label. As said, if Radiohead's scheme can actually turn into a lucrative and successful venture - that's all the more money for artists to buy their own equiptment, organize their own tours (which can be, and is, supplimented by corperate sponsors), and advertise themselves.

In a way, I see this as turning the music industry into an even greater free market which is shaped by consumer choice rather than by industry heads deciding what a band puts out, where it's advertised, and "shaping" their image for them. The record industry is just a sales tool, and by removing them you free artists to more say in the shape their own image and music. It would also, hopefully, get rid of the pre-made generic radio bands put together and pushed solely as a means to generate cash - and replace them with true artists. It would (ideally) put the focus back on people making music for the love of the music, and making money from that - rather than just using music as a tool to make money.



Advertising in the sense that your kids will listen to what they say is cool. Almost everyone is a sheep when it comes to music.

Also, radio head didn't only do it to get around distributors. They did it to have less impact on the eco system. Shipping, people going to buy the album, etc etc etc. Those guys go a little overboard when it comes to the environment. Cancelled some shows last year when they realized how much of pollution their tour would cause. Electricity at the venue, people going to see them, their bus, advertising. I dunno.

[Weeaboolits]

This is getting out of hand, the last thing I want to see is the RI/MPAA having control over educational funding, seriously now, what the hell is with these politicians? Do they have no sense at all?

[Eihwaz]

I'm not against it inasmuch as I know that piracy isn't such a great thing. I still do it, but I prefer to buy CDs/DVDs when I have the money.

I'm against it because it hurts all students, even those who don't pirate anything.