RIAA wants Universities to get campus wide Napster subscription or “lose all federal financial aid”

[populistdriven]

Source: bizorigin.com

The new Higher Education Bill (HEA §494) requires that the Universities stop all P2P downloads that RIAA doesn’t like AND buy Napster or Rhapsody subscriptions for every student on the campus or lose all federal financial aid... ~snip

The proposal would mandate a completely inappropriate role for the Secretary of Education to single out individual institutions based on information under the control of the entertainment industry, force institutions to seek an unachievable goal of preventing illegal P2P file sharing, and risk the loss of student aid for countless students innocent of any illegal file sharing activity... ~snip

The bill is being cosponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) email [email protected], and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)

Read more: http://www.bizorigin.com/2007/riaa_nuclear_option

---

I can't stomach the Democrats who support the RIAA. The worst part is that it is some of our most popular Democrats who support the RIAA. No one is a progressive who condones this. And I am extremely sad to see Clinton and Conyers as key supporters. Two Democrats whom I would otherwise trust and support completely. If a single industry can destroy good people and institutions to protect their profits, what will stop any corporate interest from doing the same?

[msongs]

1. which part is LBN and which part is your editorial opinion ? nt

[populistdriven]

3. is that a rhetorical question or oblique comment?

The Higher Education bill is about 750 pages... http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf

Like it or not this shit is going to hit the fan HARD. Democrats better decide whose side they are on because Students will not be fooled.

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. I don't read it as either. I read it as a straightforward question.

I don't think that anything in the OP is a direct quote from the article, since every paragraph sounds like opinion instead of news. But it's so hard to tell these days with the way that "news" organizations behave. Is the whole OP your interpretation and opinion or is any of it from the referenced article?

[populistdriven]

18. i repeat

[Chulanowa]

2. I love stuff like this.

It spreads innovation. Ever since the Napster crackdown, how many alternatives have exploded out there? How many ways to bypass blocks? New file types spring up left and right to circumvent all this stuff. And yet, they keep trying. If they spent HALF as much money on hiring quality artists as they do on legislation and litigation, they wouldn't be losing money.

[populistdriven]

6. They aren't losing money. Entertainment is one of our largest exports. nt

[wuushew]

4. Who is actually inserting these provisions?

Is it just generic Congressional staffers or someone who answers directly to the sponsors? I want specific names and numbers so I can harass the right people.

[populistdriven]

5. I have little doubt that it was written by a RIAA lawyer and handed to a cosponsor.

There is no chance it will pass the way it is written. This is exploding on Digg - My biggest concern is that Democrats who support the RIAA.

http://digg.com/software/RIAA_tells_Universities_to_stop_P2P_downloads_or_lose_all_federal_funding

[AlphaCentauri]

7. My objection is to the State using our money to susidise crap artists

:think: :silly: :nopity:

[Mythsaje]

14. That's so subjective...

:shrug: Musical taste varies so much.

[madrchsod]

8. i am not surprized about conyers...i posted about this in 2005

"Sensenbrenner's bill, also backed by Democratic Rep. John Conyers, is designed to plug what technologists have come to call the "analog hole." That's the practice of converting copy-protected digital material to analog format, stripping away copy protection, and shifting the material back to digital format with only a slight loss in quality."

http://www.news.com/2100-1028_3-6001825.html
Pro-Hollywood bill aims to restrict digital tuners | CNET News.com



and did`t get one reply....:rofl:

opps i forgot Dianne Feinstein is their mouth piece in the senate

[JerseygirlCT]

10. I'm finding myself confused about what you're saying here

I do agree with you that involving universities like this, and requiring they purchase a commercial product or lose federal funding is wrong.

I also agree that the government focusing on the institutions is wrong. And I'd think they have better things to do than seek out individuals. I think they're attempting to make the job of searching out those breaking the law by collecting them in a group -- a university, for instance. I don't think that holds water, though.

The problem isn't, however, that the industry seeks to protect intellectual rights from P2P downloaders... they do have a right to try to protect their products.

They go about it in far too heavy-handed a way, and it's backfiring on them. But the other extreme is occupied by people who think if they can find it for free, it must be free. That's not right, either.

[nealmhughes]

11. Colleges are not acting in loco parentis. Colleges are not copyright police.

And as for "forcing" universities to buy subscriptions, good luck with that one! The Chronicle will have its collective panties in such a wad that the RIAA and Congress won't know what hit them. Then if they really want to tick off a singularly evil collective, wait until an academic librarian gets involved. . . We may not find anything odd at a coworker keeping 17 rescue cats in a studio apt. and find Birkenstock sandals worn over khaki pants and an old school Izod Lacoste cardigan, but we can be vicious when crossed.

When setting up an E-Reserve system at a state university, my simple response to a question about the copyright status of various materials that the various instructors wanted uploaded: "I am not the copyright police. I give them the status of the latest law and interpretation. I follow the thumbrules: one chapter or less out of a monograph or anthology, they sign that they are following it. They scan it. I load it and give the students and the faculty member a password where only they can have access to it. Think of it as another mode of xeroxing."

Put up the signs. Then the onus is upon the individual and not the institution to follow the law and its interpretations.

[Danger Mouse]

12. Radiohead's bold move with 'In Rainbows' has frightened the recording industry dinosaur.

It has seen its impending extinction, but cannot accept it, so it just fights harder and harder.
The harder they fight, the uglier their demise will be.
But it will come.

[Ediacara]

13. So how is downloading music any different from turning on a radio?

[skoalyman]

15. sounds like

gduberment Blackmail:shrug:

[Nihil]

19. Royalties that are paid to the writers/artist/...

> So how is downloading music any different from turning on a radio?

Assuming here that you meant "downloading music from an unauthorised source"
and "turning on a radio tuned to a non-pirate radio station" then the answer
is that radio playlists are tracked so that royalties can be paid to the
rights-owner (vs. no tracking & no money from a "free" music site).

:hi:

(Please note that this is in no way supporting the crap in the OP, just trying
to be helpful!)

[Ediacara]

20. So if I tape what was played on the radio am I breaking the law?

And if I'm not, why the big fuss over stuff on the 'net?

[Nihil]

21. Technically, yes ...

Royalties for radio play are different from those for CD/other media sales
so although the writer would (theoretically) get *some* money for it, it
would not be the same as for a CD sale as performance rights are calculated
(and negotiated) in a different way than mechanical reproduction rights.

Unless you were about to run off a thousand copies of your tape and sell
them then no-one really gives a toss but yes, it is still "technically"
illegal. (Sort of how being slightly over the speed limit on a motorway
is technically illegal but unlikely to be prosecuted unless there were
other issues involved.)

Part of "the big fuss over stuff on the net" is that someone is taking a
single copy of the CD and effectively running off a few thousand copies
then giving them away, resulting in reduced sales for the physical CD
(though few people would pretend that every net copy represents a genuine
physical loss). This obviously leads to "cascades" where some of said copies
are posted and copied in turn, the losses all adding up. It can also lead
to someone burning their own CD and selling them (which is the point where
home taping gets onto thin ice). It is not as serious as the hype from the
major houses would have you believe but it *is* an issue.

Now *buying* the stuff over the net is the smart solution to this as it
gives the freedom to "only get the track you want instead of being forced
to buy the whole over-priced album" whilst still getting the money back
to the people who deserve it (the writers and the artists). It also cuts
down the margin that the major houses can grab and so *that* is why they
drag their feet on it whilst shouting & screaming about "net pirates".

:hi:

[loser_user]

16. A college would for a Rhapsody subscription?

I WANT TO GO BACK!!!

No not really but I do acutally subscribe to Rhapsody. The RIAA is evil and the real reason they are losing money is because of the quality of music these is days awful but of course the RIAA would admit to it so they use downloading as a scapegoat and have wasted time suing people for lost money instead of finding new innovations.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. Only in America

I can't imagine a law being passed anywhere else on earth that would require any organization to employ the services of SPECIFIC private businesses. That would also have major trade consequences if the practice were to spread to other industries.