News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
March 1, 2007
The music industry is ramping up its campaign against illegal file sharing by college students — and asking campus administrators to play a more central role in that process.
Since late 2003, when entertainment companies began suing people for sharing large amounts of music (and eventually movies) over the Internet in violation of federal copyright law, the Recording Industry Association of America has filed about 1,000 of its 18,000 lawsuits against students. In a new strategy it announced Wednesday, the association said it will send 400 “pre-litigation” letters each month (a total of 5,000 a year) offering students the chance to settle at a “substantially discounted” rate what they owe for downloading music illegally and to keep the association from filing lawsuits that would appear on their public record.
The RIAA’s letters will go to administrators at colleges and universities to deliver the notices to the appropriate students, and the first batch of 400 letters went out Wednesday to officials at 13 universities, mostly large public ones (see list at bottom). Students who don’t respond within 20 days will face lawsuits.
Mitch Bainwol and Cary H. Sherman, the RIAA’s chairman and president, respectively, said that despite the steps higher education associations and officials at many individual colleges have made to try to limit illegal peer-to-peer file sharing by students, by educating students about the illegality of the practice and promoting legal alternatives to it, “massive theft” continues, as Sherman put it.
“We clearly are seeing continuing widespread piracy, theft, on college campuses,” Bainwol said. In response, he said, it was only appropriate that the recording industry engage in a “substantial ratcheting up, a refocusing on the college community” as a major source of the illegal downloading problem.
While students are the ultimate targets, college officials have a responsibility and a role to play, too, Sherman said. “We take this opportunity to once again ask schools to be proactive to step up and accept responsibility for the activities of students on their networks. It’s not a legal responsibility, but a moral responsibility, as educators, as leaders transmitting values to their students.”
The file sharing issue has been a thorny one for many college and university administrators, who see themselves as having a responsibility to limit an illegal activity taking place on their campuses (an activity that can also clog their networks), yet aren’t thrilled about having to play technology cop to their students on the entertainment industry’s behalf.
The RIAA’s (and the Motion Picture Academy of America’s) previous campaign of “John Doe” lawsuits against individual students have put campus officials on the spot, as the lawsuits have been accompanied by subpoenas ordering the colleges and universities to put names to the students identified only by their IP addresses. Campuses have typically complied, although some have complained that academe is being singled out unreasonably, given that many more Americans download music and movie files illegally through their commercial Internet providers than students do through their campus networks.
Under the recording industry’s new line of attack — which Kenneth C. Green, founding director of the Campus Computing Project, called a “spring offensive” — the companies are asking college administrators to pass the settlement offers on to their students, voluntarily, and to encourage the students to then file for the settlements via a Web site within 20 days. The RIAA declined to say how much students might save by settling rather than facing court-imposed penalties — which news reports have pegged at $3,000 to $4,000 on average — but its officials described the savings as substantial.
The American Council on Education, which at the request of the RIAA sent an e-mail to about 2,000 college presidents Wednesday informing them of the new campaign and distributing an RIAA letter explaining it, did not take a stand on whether colleges should encourage students to take the deal. “We have not had time to fully evaluate this idea and cannot, at present, formally advise you on this matter, but it may provide potential benefits to students facing lawsuits as well as to the RIAA,” David Ward, the council’s president, said in his accompanying note. “In the event that your institution is contacted, we encourage you to review the proposal with legal counsel and determine whether this approach makes sense for your campus.”
Officials at the colleges on the receiving end of the RIAA’s first batch of letters acknowledged that the campaign raised potentially difficult issues for them. “We are being asked to deliver their message straight to students,” said Sally Linder, acting senior director of media relations at Ohio University, which received 50 of the settlement letters, more than any other institution. She said the university would be weighing its obligations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the federal law on which the entertainment industry’s lawsuits are based, but also under federal privacy laws. “We will be looking at this with a careful legal eye,” Linder said.
John F. Dubach, chief information officer at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which received notice of 37 students with alleged file sharing violations, acknowledged that his and other institutions “are a little bit more in the middle on this” than they have been under the recording industry’s previous approach, especially because they would be tracking down the students voluntarily rather than under the compulsion of a subpoena.
But he also noted that the RIAA would presumably file a lawsuit against any student with whom the university did not share the settlement offer, so “legally we’d be compelled” to get involved at that point, by providing the student’s name in response to the accompanying subpoena. “I’m not sure this makes us any more of an intermediary,” Dubach said. And besides, he added, “I’m not sure we’d be doing our students a favor by not passing the information on to them,” potentially saving them money.
Critics of the entertainment industry’s crackdown on file sharing, however, saw it differently, unsurprisingly. “The RIAA is essentially asking universities to help them make it easier and cheaper to shake down more students,” said Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He described the recording industry’s latest effort as a desperate and flawed attempt to sustain an unsustainable business model, and discouraged institutions from cooperating in it. Universities, he said, “need to ask themselves which side of this historical moment they want to be on — on the side of the four major record labels, or on the side of their students.”
William E. (Brit) Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland and co-chairman of the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities Technology Task Force, a panel of college and industry officials on the file sharing issue, said it was wholly appropriate for colleges to work with the entertainment industry on limiting illegal downloading. “The thing that’s very troubling for us is that because of students using our technology, we have illegal activity on our campuses,” Kirwan said, and “a very real responsibility to try to address the problem.”
Kirwan also said colleges’ dependence on intellectual property gives them added responsibility. “It would be very hypocritical of us to argue for protection of intellectual property that is coming from our enterprise,” in the form of scholarship, “and look the other way when people are abusing property rights on our own campuses.
“The real challenge,” he said, “is finding a way to prevent the activity.”
The list of campuses and the number of letters they received:
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
The industry should be able expect that students will not violate its right to be the exclusive distributor of its music. Illegal downloading is not an heroic thumbing of the nose at a clueless industry, it’s an example of direct competition with the millions of downloads, all fully authorized, by which the industry now distributes a lot of its music.
Readers of a certain age might not be aware of this.
Uncool, at 10:30 am EST on March 1, 2007
Sherman said. “(they have) a moral responsibility, as educators, as leaders transmitting values to their students.”
So now the entertainment industy is lecturing on moral values.
Ken D., at 10:30 am EST on March 1, 2007
Mr. McCool talks about the music industry’s protection of its own music as part of ancient history. Is it reasonable to expect the RIAA to sit back and watch while students download hundreds or thousands of songs for free? Shouldn’t artists get paid for their music?
Mr. McCool neglects to mention that there are many businesses that offer legitimate downloads for around 99 cents per song. However unlike CDs songs can’t be freely shared due to Digital Rights Management software (DRM) built into each download. This is what keeps the music industry in the stone age, not the inability to offer an alternative to illegal downloading.
Steve, at 1:05 pm EST on March 1, 2007
I’d like to see one of these universities stand up to the RIAA, not because it’s my right to download music for free, but because the RIAA is asserting one view of fair use that needs testing in the courts. I’d like to see the RIAA go after Stanford students with the hopes that Lawrence Lessig could get the university to fight the RIAA.
On a side note, if I didn’t consider the music worth buying, but considered it worth downloading for free, can I be accused of taking money out of the recording industry’s pockets? I’m never going to buy it anyway, so there’s no monetary loss. Of course, I doubt this would fly in court, eh?
bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 1:42 pm EST on March 1, 2007
Mr. Bleck said, “On a side note, if I didn’t consider the music worth buying, but considered it worth downloading for free, can I be accused of taking money out of the recording industry’s pockets? I’m never going to buy it anyway, so there’s no monetary loss.”
By that logic I know where I’m getting my next car — at the Mercedes dealership. Of course I’m not going to pay for it since I don’t consider it worth buying. I will be visiting them ‘after hours’, so to speak. That way I can avoid that pesky sales guy. I think they keep the keys in the sales office so I’ll just help myself. And there’s no monetary loss for Mercedes, is there?
Kevin, at 5:05 pm EST on March 1, 2007
Kevin’s comparison is entirely spurious. You can’t make a copy (of any quality) of a Mercedes while leaving the dealership with the initial car. You can with music. Calling it ‘theft’ is a misuse of terms as nothing is actually removed from the owner’s property.
The breaching of copyright is a serious matter, however, and I don’t advocate illegal downloading as a method of resistance. I also will not do any business with the RIAA, for being completely morally bankrupt and then trying to treat all of us like thieves.
The very concept of ‘Intellectual Property’ under which we currently operate has been bought and paid for by the powerful at the expense of the public good, and this debate is not at all new— Thomas Macaulay addressed the English Parliament about issues of copyright in 1841 and touched on nearly all the points we struggle with today.
http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm
Lindsey, at 6:05 pm EST on March 1, 2007
I throw out that example because one strike against fair use is whether the finances of the copyright owner are harmed. If I’d never buy some song or another, but I’ll take it for free, have they suffered actual loss? The Mercedes analogy doesn’t quite work because the cars are produced in finite quantities. If I take a car for free, there isn’t something there to sell to someone who considers it worth the cost. With downloading music, it’s still there to be bought or stolen. Hence, no quantifiable loss.
If something isn’t selling, that’s the market’s way of saying it isn’t worth the cost, whether it’s ninety-nine cents or ninety-nine dollars. The 99-cents is a fairly arbitrary number as far as I know. Maybe the RIAA folks need to keep knocking the price down until people are willing to buy. That’s how real estate works, why not music?
sign me, somewhat tongue in cheek, but only somewhat.
bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 6:06 pm EST on March 1, 2007
I find the RIAA’s approach to music downloading deeply offensive. This is not, as Sheman states, a moral issue. It is about money, money, money. Moreover, media downloading is about as illegal as photocopying, perhaps a tort but certainly not grand larceny.
I co-authored the book, “Pirates of the Digital Millennium,” [www.digitalpirates.info] and traveled from coast to coast hosting focus groups with students. Most said they would be willing to pay “something” [read: not 99 cents] for a song. What they resist is buying a CD that has a bunch of songs they don’t want to listen to. Most young people today want a personalized selection of music, which is why most have iPods or other MP3 players. Thus the real reason behind the RIAA’s picking on children is that they can control the CD as a distribution media, but they can’t control the Internet.
In our book we discuss the origins and nature of copyright law and all the differeing points of view regarding digital media piracy. In the concluding chapter, we offer a number of solutions to this problem — sensible, practical, solutions to which the RIAA, in all its righteous indignation, has so far turned a blind eye — and ear.
Jack B. Rochester, The New England Institute of Art, at 12:10 pm EST on March 2, 2007
“Shouldn’t artists get paid for their music?"This debate is not about the artists, for most artists don’t get compensated fairly for the amount of cds they sell. It’s the record labels who are pocketing the money from the sales. This is why a lot of the independent and smaller-label bands backed Napster in the old debate. These bands would rather get their music out for free to their fans and to entice new fans to listen to their music, so that the fans can then in turn pay the artists back by attending concerts and buying merchandise.
It also has not been proven yet that people who download music don’t in turn by more cds. I know as a consumer, I am more willing to buy a cd after I have the chance to test out the music through these free downloading services. And if I’m going to buy a cd in the first place, I’m going to buy it anyway even if I can get the songs over the internet. If the music industry is losing money, I don’t know if I’d pinpoint it specifically at illegal file-sharing yet.
Mark, at 2:50 pm EST on March 2, 2007
Mark is absolutely right on both counts. Poitn one: Musicians don’t get compensated well for their work [by the way, neither do artists or writers]. But most artists only want exposure, so that remuneration is often a secondary concern. And it’s not just indies. Consider Wilco, who had their contract canceled becaus the label didn’t think the album, “Yankee Hotel Foxtrot,” had commercial viability. Wilco put the tracks on their Web site for free downloading, and shortly they had an offer from another label [ironically owned by the same company] and the CD sold like crazy.
Point two: People who listen first online often buy the CD. I know I do and there are many Web venues to get a taste. But there is also empirical evidence: In 2004, a professor from Harvard and another from UNC Chapel Hill published a report that concluded, “Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.” [http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf]
Jack B. Rochester, at 5:45 pm EST on March 2, 2007
Somewhere along the lines I feel both the RIAA and Education sector have their wires crossed.
The RIAA members DO lose something when a song is downloaded illegally. They lose the OPPORTUNITY to generate an income from the song downloaded.
They DO NOT however lose financially because the song costs nothing to distribute, store, maintain etc. What needs to be tested is the potential value on offer.
For instance, if the average song sells 1000 copies, then beyond that number there is no opportunity loss because the average has been met. Below that number it could be shown that there is a loss because downloads prevent the average number of sales for a particular song from being met.
The issue then is for the RIAA to PROVE how much it loses from a loss of potential, not from the actual downloads.
The other thing is ‘whose responsibility?’ If the RIAA is serious about asking Universities to store download logs, set up anti-piracy technology and so on, then the RIAA are the ones who ought to pay for the software, the maintenance and the access, not the colleges.
Whilst that is happening, students and colleges could then sue the RIAA for any legitmate uses prevented by their software.
If the RIAA is serious, THEY should accept the fiscal responsibility
Marcus Barber, at 9:50 pm EST on March 4, 2007
To begin with, I concede that I do believe that illegal downloading does reduce the demand for CD’s. I also believe that, since the music file is not physically removed from the recoding industry’s database, downloading is not truly stealing. In short, the RIAA is arguing that decreasing the demand for CD’s by copying and sharing copyrighted material at a price that they cannot match is illegal.
This reminds me of patents for inventions. Should it be illegal for Pepsi to sell its product more cheaply because it would decrease demand for Coke? Should discount electronics companies be banned from making TV’s since the more established electronics companies thought of it first? I doubt that any serious person could answer yes to either of these questions.
Yes, the RIAA is staring death in the face. However, in a non-fascist nation, the government has no right to forbid competition to save a failing industry unless the competing industry is clearly guilty of direct sabotage. That being said, an artist has the right to stop making music if they do not want it to reach the ears of the public without collecting royalties.
Although I do empathize with the fear the RIAA must feel at this juncture, they must either develop a business model capable of competing with modern technology or go the way of the stagecoach. If they do not, their only hope is that our President starts asking people to call him Il Duce.
Jake, A College Student’s Take on the Situation at Oberlin College, at 5:50 am EDT on March 15, 2007
It’s pretty simple folks. If you take something that you haven’t paid for its theft. The fair use argument is a cover for people who want something for nothing.
Michael Ritter, at 7:00 am EDT on April 12, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
West Valley College is now accepting applications for qualified persons interested in part-time teaching assignments in ... see job
MCC is located minutes south of Lake Ontario in Rochester NY. The College enrolls approximately 36,000 students each year. ... see job
General Purpose
As the Senior Project Manager, have the responsibility for managing CORE government and ... see job
CECS Center for Embedded Computer Systems Position: Associate Specialist The Center for Embedded Computer Systems (CECS) at ... see job
Posting Description: Individual needed full-time for up to two years’ funding, starting Spring 2007. The ... see job
ASSISTANT OR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP CENTER FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION COLLEGE OF BUSINESS WESTERN ... see job
Job Summary Reporting to the Director of the MBA Career Management Center (CMC), the Associate Director will ... see job
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
Georgia Gwinnett College, the 35th member of the University System of Georgia, is a premier 21st century four-year liberal ... see job
The Web Publisher is responsible for management of BCC’s web properties including design, development and maintenance. 1. ... see job
A broken business model
When is the music industry going to catch a clue and realize their decades old business model is broken? They still think they sell CDs (or vinyl records, or cassette tapes, or 8-track tapes before that). They sell MUSIC! And the paradigm is shifting more rapidly than ever. Even people my age (late 40s) are snatching up MP3 players. At first they rip their CD collections, but then go looking for music on the Internet. Soon artists won’t even bother signing with a record label. They will set up websites (or MySpace pages) and sell their music solely on line. Older artists who can’t get the attention of major record labels will join them as they reach out more effectivly to their older, nostalgic audiences. The music industry’s game is over and they are scrambling like crazy to hold on to their fading balance sheets and clout. Buh-bye, RIAA. See you on the flip-side.
Tom McCool, at 9:10 am EST on March 1, 2007