Last week, the RIAA conducted a conference call with various college-newspaper writers, with whom they discussed their strategies for cracking down on campus downloaders. Emcees Without Voices obtained a transcript of the chat, and now everybody can watch as RIAA president Cary Sherman and executive VP (and general counsel) Steven Marks try to school the younguns on why students should put down the apple bong and call up their lawyer. Some choice excerpts after the click-through.
Sherman’s opening remarks set the tone for the chat, the thrust of which boils down to: Ohmigod, guys! Your favorite artists are, like, soooooo mad at you! To wit: “Many of you probably have a favorite local band on your campus. If music theft is allowed to continue at such unacceptably high levels, the chances of those bands getting signed to a record label deal will continue to diminish.” When you consider that this is coming from an industry that has long bullied emerging artists into crippling, unfairly balanced contracts, and that has reduced A&R departments to the size of a jazz trio, and that has put financial muscle behind doomed-to-fail megastars whose paychecks swallow up the entire roster’s budget, then…well, then, we actually forgot the point. Oh yeah: Dicks!
But after that liitle bit of condescending commentary, we get to the Q&A section. Fire away, kids!
How do you intend to prove that the student being charged actually did the downloading? What if they claim that someone stole their information or they forgot to log off of a common computer?
Steven Marks: We routinely deal with situations like this. For example, if a roommate comes forward as the person who engaged in the activity, we can drop the case against the original defendant and file a new case or settle with the roommate.
Take comfort, students: You may be sued if your roommate uses your computer to download MP3s, but all will be forgiven as long as your roommate comes forward. That happens all the time!
Mr. Marks, how effective will this new initiative be if universities refuse to give out individual user’s information and is there any legal ramifications for the universities themselves?
Steven Marks: We believe universities have every incentive to forward the letters to students. How would a student feel if his or her opportunity to settle at a substantial discount and before the lawsuit was filed on the public record was lost because the university did not forward the notice?
Yes, how would students feel if their school protected their privacy, rather than handing over their personal info to a deep-pocketed lobbying group? Oh bless you, RIAA! Your star just keeps shining!
What would the benefits be of settling? Would you be willing to drop all charges if a student deleated [sic] their files?
Cary Sherman: No, we don’t drop charges just because a student agrees to delete the illegal files. What kind of deterrence program would that be? Any student could infringe until caught, and all that he’d have to do to get out of trouble is delete the files? That’s why we’re very firm about this. When we file a lawsuit, we pursue it. The advantage of settling is that you can do it for less. In fact, the earlier in the process, the more reasonable the settlement.
Translation: Okay, you got us. We’re just plain broke.
Not So Quick Link: Transcript of RIAA (president and general counsel) chat with college newspapers [Emcees Without Voices]
I think some of that’s a change. From a letter from my college’s Dean of Students back in September:
The RIAA or similar organizations identify offending computers through a variety of means, notifies [College] of the offense and, in turn, permits [College] to handle the disciplinary action with the offender. Why one student was “found” and others not is known only to the RIAA. [College] has not been a part of the identification process other than linking a name to the specific IP address. At this time, [College] warns offending students of their illegal behavior, asks that the offending material be removed from their computer and places the student on a probationary status with respect to computing privileges. Second offenses can result in the revocation of campus computing access/privileges.
(This letter was sent out after a “record” 10 students were caught in the first month of school. Unless the students settled the cases faster than the campus rumor mill could keep up–unlikely–I don’t recall hearing a single thing about any of my fellow students actually facing the charges in court.)
Why can’t the wimpy college newspaper writers defend themselves correctly?
What I never hear anyone mention about this “theft…[that] continue[s] at such unacceptably high levels” is that the “stolen” property is of a substantially lower quality than that which you find on a CD. This seems to be more of a case of taking an unlicensed photo of a painting than pulling an Thomas Crown-style museum heist. They don’t send Rene Russo out to sleep with you/arrest you for taking pictures of a Monet.
we can’t get a say in because the moderator of the chat didn’t allow the hard questions to be asked…for instance…i asked the following questions….both of which were never publicly posted on the chat:
From what I understand, a big part of the RIAA’s litigation is to protect the rights of the artists. In December the RIAA petitioned a judge to reduce amount owed to songwriters and publishers for royalties involving digital copies such as pieces of music purchased online or as cell phone ringers. How does this justify your protection of musicians if you’re in effect taking money away from them. Shouldn’t the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
and
What are your thoughts on University wide agreements with legal downloading programs such as the one Penn State has with Napster. On the recently released list of top offending schools, Penn State was not in the top 20 yet they have one of the top 10 enrollments in the country. In terms of numbers, it would seem that using legal music downloading programs is helping to stop the bleeding. Do you think this is the right step in terms of buying and/ore listening to legal music or would you prefer the upkeep of physical music stores?
instead of asking pertinent questions, the moderator passed along questions that had A) already been asked or B) could be answered by either using common sense or reading the provided press release…
oh that….and the end….is priceless with the comparisons to music being water and justifying suing poor college students who are scraping together cash for tuition by saying that artists are losing money everyday. that and the perpetual allusion that music will die without money…when in reality money has nothing to do with art
we can’t get a say in because the moderator of the chat didn’t allow the hard questions to be asked…for instance…i asked the following questions….both of which were never publicly posted on the chat:
From what I understand, a big part of the RIAA’s litigation is to protect the rights of the artists. In December the RIAA petitioned a judge to reduce amount owed to songwriters and publishers for royalties involving digital copies such as pieces of music purchased online or as cell phone ringers. How does this justify your protection of musicians if you’re in effect taking money away from them. Shouldn’t the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
and
What are your thoughts on University wide agreements with legal downloading programs such as the one Penn State has with Napster. On the recently released list of top offending schools, Penn State was not in the top 20 yet they have one of the top 10 enrollments in the country. In terms of numbers, it would seem that using legal music downloading programs is helping to stop the bleeding. Do you think this is the right step in terms of buying and/ore listening to legal music or would you prefer the upkeep of physical music stores?
instead of asking pertinent questions, the moderator passed along questions that had A) already been asked or B) could be answered by either using common sense or reading the provided press release…
the ending comparison of music to water and saying that if there is no money….the music will dry up…is HILARIOUS. The RIAA’s insane thoughtprocess that leads people to believe the artists are making such a huge buck off of CD sales is ridiculous. Real artists don’t care about money, and art is not about earning cash, it’s about creation
For once and for all, this is not “theft.” It’s “copyright infringement.” There’s a difference. Let’s at least try to keep things accurate.
And the idea that downloading hurts indie acts is laughable. Would the Arcade Fire have sold 750k cds without being downloaded by every hipster with broadband? Unlikely. Would they be instantaneously selling out shows at huge venues if “Funeral” weren’t so omnipresent on download sites? Most definitely not.
And, really, with the state of radio being what it is today, I would never get a chance to listen to half the indie artists I listen to without being able to download them for free. And my hearing them – not just streaming online, but downloading the music and being able to listen to it on my mp3 player – makes me more likely to become a fan of a band, provided I like their music, more likely to by the cd (that I’ve already downloaded), provided that it’s reasonably priced, and much more likely to see the band live the next time they come through town.
If the RIAA cares about artists so much, maybe they should open the floor for debate on the royalties musicians get for LEGAL downloads. I’d actually think an artist would prefer that a fan download two or three albums and then be convinced of the need to see them live then to purchase a couple songs from iTunes and then not really know enough about them to justify purchasing a concert ticket.
Basically, I think that free downloading is on the whole (if not without exception) good for artists, particularly up and coming young bands that tour and try to build up a following. It’s bad for the labels.
PS – I’m a student and will be working a low-paying job in the summer. It will cost approximately three hours’ worth of wages to buy one major label cd. And I’ve yet to find a local radio station that’s worth listening to.
but again – does this really apply to any of the NON-major labels?
these kids getting sued aren’t the ones downloading the leaked arcade fire, battles, ted leo, or maximo park albums. they’re the ones downloading the latest akon singles, so chances are good they don’t have a favorite local band, or if they do, it’s o.a.r. (*shudder*)
they ignored my questions…the moderator must’ve been in cahoots with em
To add to the preceding, the new Arcade Fire album is now available on eMusic for 100% legal, DRM-free downloading. So you may wish to select another example band, as the RIAA does not appear to care whether I “burn an unlimited number of CDs” of Arcade fire or put it on “any computer as well as any portable music player or digital device” (as the eMusic terms permit).
Ok, I still don’t understand on how they can prove anything. If I would get a letter I’d just do the following things.
1) Throw away the stupid letter (sew me).
2) Delete, Format my HDD’s
3) Change my IP and Mac address :)
4) Get a Wi-Fi router
In court, hey your machine was used to download blah, blah, blah uh wait a minute what what the IP/MAC address of the machine, blah, blah, oh wait my machine IP/MAC is blah, blah. So I think that since I have unsecured Wi-Fi someone must of connected to it and downloaded the files, please find that person ans sew him/her. :)
@Niskyspy:
and cant u then counter sue the college for providing your information.
death to the RIAA arrrrrrrrrr
@Niskyspy: The RIAA’s argument goes like this: This IP number was used to download these files at this day and time. At this day and time, this IP was assigned to your computer, therefore you are guilty. That’s why …
1) Ignoring a court order/summons, even a frivolous one, is never wise.
2) You don’t need to still be in possession of the music to be guilty of the crime.
3) Your IP address at the time you downloaded the music is what’s relevant, which is why they need universities/ISPs to cooperate.
4) That’s why they are trying to establish precedent that the owner of a wi-fi hub is responsible for all the activity on that hub.
Unfortunately, our legal system is not quite up to speed on the interwebs, so these tactics can be quite effective.
To all the Gizmodo readers who are joining in: Welcome! Also, to clarify, the Arcade Fire album-release is kind of our ludicrous in-joke today.