Breaks previous record, targeting largest number of suspected file-sharers ever since launching its campus music theft initiatives back in 2007.Leave it up to the RIAA to break its own record for most ever number of poor college students targeted for a lawsuit. For late last week it sent out 569 “pre-litigation settlement letters” to college students on 26 campuses across the country whom it suspects of illegal file-sharing. Since it began targeting college students back on February 28, 2007 the previous record had been 503, thus making this latest round, the thirteenth for those keeping track, the biggest ever.
I think the fact that it's been more than 2 years since its campus crackdown began and file-sharing is just if not more so prevalent than ever should really tell the RIAA something - that it's plan just isn't working! If the RIAA was smart it would try to listen to what EMI's new digital music chief Douglas Merrill said recently, that "Suing fans doesn't feel like a winning strategy." If you have the same problem as you did two years ago, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars, countless hours of manpower, and have managed to anger artists, music fans, and non-music fans alike in the process then I think it's obviously not a "winning strategy." Merrill, it seems, is also the only one aware of the data out there "...that shows that file-sharing is actually good for artists." It's too bad that the RIAA has yet to make this realization. For what's even more despicable about targeting illegal file-sharing on college campus networks is that it's most likely unfairly singling out students unable to afford off-campus housing. By targeting students who reside on campus and therefore use its network for internet access then the RIAA is predominantly targeting students receiving financial assistance to fund their college education. They are also most likely to be unable to afford counsel or to defend themselves in a court of law. As for the 26 college campuses targeted last week, here’s a full breakdown of the number of letters to be received by each of them: University of Texas at Austin, 75 (BTW I'd like to say congrats to my hometown Merced for making the list this time around) |
|
members that voted for this story
|
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-music-industry-exec-p2p-litigation-is-a-money-pit.html
Its just common sense. OF COURSE illegal file sharing results in less profit for the music companies. And the game companies. And the porn companies.
I used to buy a little music, some DVDs, quite a few games, and a fair bit of porn every year. This all stopped in 1999. Coincidentally, thats when I started with the file sharing. I dont think Im alone in this.
Obviously, suing people like this isnt going to help the music industry much, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking that sharing S Club 7's latest single is actually helping the music industry.
Sufficed to say I'm a little picky as to the games and companies I will support, however over half of the Shows and Games I've downloaded, I've purchased on DVD or are on my wish-list when I see it next in stores and have the spare cash to buy it.
Biased? It was a Canadian-govt funded study.......if the Canadians are anything its hopelessly neutral in all affairs.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html
Filesharing ATM does result as a lost for major record labels, However this is at the cost of them not adapting or creating a new model for today's digital content.
as for pron, I tend to watch the homemade/amature stuff which they gladly upload on tube8.com for free. :-)
Anyway contrary to your misguided belief many studies done by independent groups have found that Filesharing results in statically insignificant loss, or a gain for the industry as a whole. Unlike your arbitrary belief that free access negatively affects sales, these studies use measurable data, and statistical processes to validate the hypothesis. This is just off the top of my head but the majority of studies that I've seen that have shown net gain, show it in regards to the independent labels. So I would say that could be the motivation for crushing filesharing. Either way, most studies that have supported the music industry have simply stated that since the introduction of filesharing their sales have dropped. From what I've seen they never made a statistically significant link between loss of sales and Filesharing.
Anyway heres some studies by biased kids:
Harvard law school
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
Study paid for by Canada, done by the University of London
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html
Two links to the actual research, from reputable schools. Other examples of success with filesharing would be Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I-IV, Radiohead: In Rainbows, Arctic Monkeys, etc... Are those not representative of success while offering free music? Do you want more evidence?
Nielsen SoundScan did some studies that support the argument that filesharing has negative effects on sales. The only problem is they are paid by the record labels, is that unbiased to you?
Anyone remember the Pollara study that completely backfired on CRIA (RIAA operating in Canada)? It's just one example of how lobbying pushed the concept of cherry-picking data, yet when the full study was released, it turned out that the CRIA's claim was shot down by their own study.
Having been busted for twisting the words of the findings of the study, Pollara, obviously paid by CRIA to purport a claim, tried in vain to counter the arguments of what the study actually said. Naturally, that proved to be little more than damaging to Pollara's credibility. Mad props to Law professor Michael Geist for that one:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1168/Itemid,85/
Its just common sense that illegal downloading does not increase sales for these companies. Yeah, some people may pay for products that they've already downloaded for free. But the vast, overwhelming majority of people dont have this moral hangup and/or the money.
Anyway, boasting that your a political scientist does not impress me, thats like saying you have a history degree. You willingness to defend a man who murdered, imprisoned and expelled anyone who was a threat to his vision says allot about your morality. He did manage to develop allot for the soviets, even built up the empire quickly, but at what cost?
"..and read a weekly communist newspaper." Maybe that's part of the problem, that and the fact that you boast mainly of political theory and practice, both of which, as any good political scientist knows(as I too have a degree in), are never rooted in FACT nor empirical evidence, but instead on hyperbole and aestheticism.
If politics was rooted in facts and all its many emissaries had to speak the truth for a change the whole of society would collapse in an instant.
To me, this is why filesharers are bigger spenders on so-called "intellectual property" - the mere fact that they are able to find more content to spend on in the first place. I also count things like hats, t-shirts, posters and other memorabilia as spending on that particular thing too btw.