October 18, 2007 11:16 AM PDT

RIAA threatens 19 universities with lawsuits

Updated at 12:03 p.m. PDT: Just in time to welcome many students back from fall break, the Recording Industry Association of America on Thursday dispatched a new round of "prelitigation" letters to 19 U.S. universities from coast to coast, alleging that campus networks are being used to commit copyright infringement.

For those keeping score at home, this marks the ninth time the RIAA has launched such an initiative.

As usual, each of the 411 letters reveals that a student or employee of the school is about to be sued for copyright infringement. The letters also offer the opportunity for those targeted to settle out of court at a "discounted rate," touting a special Web site that allows targets to settle their claims online.

Here's the list of schools affected this time around and the number of letters for each, according to the RIAA: Drexel University (17 letters), Indiana University (23), Northern Illinois University (25), Occidental College (19), State University of New York at Morrisville (18), Texas Christian University (20), Tufts University (15), University of Alabama (14), University of California at Berkeley (19), University of Delaware (18), University of Georgia (13), University of Iowa (18), University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (20), University of Nebraska at Lincoln (13), University of New Hampshire (30), University of New Mexico (17), University of South Florida (43), University of Southern California (37) and Vanderbilt University (32).

And here's a sample letter sent to an alleged illegal filesharer (PDF), courtesy of Educause, a nonprofit group that represents higher-education institutions and oversees the .edu domain.

The latest load of letters shows that the RIAA isn't letting up on its aggressive attempts to go after allegedly illicit file swapping on university campuses. To mark the start of the new school year, it also sent more than 400 letters to 22 universities last month. Over a four-month span earlier this year, the record industry targeted 1,600 individual students, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a well-known critic of the RIAA's legal tactics.

The RIAA, for its part, attempted to bolster its approach by citing figures from market research firm NPD Group that college students alone accounted for more than $1.3 billion illegal music downloads last year.

"This theft triggers a harmful domino effect throughout the music community--thousands of regular, working-class musicians and others out of work, record stores shuttered, new bands never signed," said Steven Marks, the RIAA's general counsel. "When faced with this reality, we have no choice but to hold those individuals responsible for ignoring the law and all the great new legal ways to get affordable, high-quality music."

Earlier this week, we reported that the RIAA was moving forward with a copyright case against 19 students at George Washington University. But as my colleague Declan McCullagh has pointed out, the RIAA's efforts to track down alleged culprits may be complicated by the length of time that individual universities keep records of their users' Internet Protocol address assignments.

Members of Congress have also gotten into the game again this year, threatening to enact new laws or to withhold funding from universities if administrators don't do more to police piracy on their networks.

Recent posts from News Blog
Sprint HTC Touch Diamond outed early
Woman to virtual ex: 'I won't be ignored!'
Swiss secret sauce to power green choppers
iLink to deliver answers to military online communities
Vonage names new CEO
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 26 comments (Showing first 20 comments)
Ludicrous Tools.
by Tomcat Adam October 18, 2007 11:48 AM PDT
Getting this out of the way right now, before this explodes like every RIAA story:

1) Copyright Infringement =/= stealing. No physical property is lost. It's like me taking a picture of your car (from every angle) and building myself a copy. Ok, bad analogy, but you get my point.

2) If you consider it stealing, consider:
-People would NOT have bought the song if they couldn't download it; insane assumption.
-Make the punishment, at most, fit the crime;
Charge them a buck per song.

3) Uploading - "Made it available".
The RIAA already lost a case over this (and should have lost the previous but the defense was retarded). Anything in your computers shared folder (Shared Pic/Mov/Music, My Documents) falls under the "made available to share".
You can, at most, mathematically calculate the total amount of bytes uploaded (of said song) and use that to extrapolate a payment.

4) "But but think of the artists!"
No. Don't even bring this up. The RIAA stiffs the artists far more than pirates ever will.
Most artists/bands get between 0.3 and 3 cents per CD. Most that do not fall into that range get even less.
Concert, T-Shirt and memorabilia sales account for the much greater majority of an artists profit.

The RIAA is a dying relic that was (a little bit) needed a LONG time ago. But their business model does not apply today, and they're doing as much damage as they can to stay in the game.

Can't sue the old granny, don't have any evidence? File the papers, she'll rack up a legal bill and settle it immediately.
Reply to this comment
Isn't that special.
by Renegade Knight October 18, 2007 11:51 AM PDT
I wonder if these universities have law schools who would like to practice litigation by taking on the RIAA on as many legal fronts as it takes to bankrupt the RIAA and make it's owners back out of the deal and spend their money on marketing music in ways that actually sell.
Reply to this comment View reply
Sony RIAA putting themselves out of business
by rdupuy11 October 18, 2007 12:10 PM PDT
Sony, member of the RIAA and therefore supporter of suing college students is putting themselves out of business.

As many have already stated...Artists make their money from live concerts and memoriabilia...in the internet age, digital age... its not clear why anyone needs music distribution companies at all.

Artists are not being trained by the RIAA and its members... any artist can have their work distributed without trouble via the internet.

That's the handwriting on the wall that the RIAA can see.

Artists will fantastically profit if the old system falls away.

You make money from your fan services....and someday in the future, people will marvel that in the old days you actually PAID for MUSIC??? It will boggle the mind.

You let people listen to music for free. If they like it...they become a fan, then you profit from them.

Trying to profit when you haven't made fans, is absurd.
Reply to this comment
RE: RIAA threatens 19 universities with lawsuits
by protagonistic October 18, 2007 12:24 PM PDT
Once again the RIAA proves it is too busy winning the battle to
notice it is losing the war. At least we can all look forward to the
time when the RIAA will finally miss its foot and shoot itself in
some vital spot.

Don't get me wrong, sharing copyrighted music is just plain
wrong, but the RIAA has long since conceded the moral high
ground in the fight. And it is a fight they can no longer win.
Reply to this comment
Musical Truth!!!
by jimmyhoops October 18, 2007 12:31 PM PDT
Jerry Garcia had the correct attitude about his music. Once it
leaves his guitar, it then became the property of the world. For
those not in the 'know', the Grateful Dead were pioneers in
allowing 'tapers' to record live events and to trade them freely
(and for free) amongst the fans. Out of respect, any trading
'dead head' would not charge for the music...and if any monies
traded hands, it was merely to cover the cost of the recording
medium (in most cases, cassette tapes and in recent years the
cost of a blank cd).

The problem with the RIAA stems from their greed oriented
business model in which they create very little but extract wealth
in great sums from the actual artists themselves.

For those aware of the most recent trends, several artists have
begun cutting out the middleman (record companies) and selling
directly to their fans in digital format, on-line. This, to me,
marks the eventual demise of traditional business models for
the record companies.

I can already start to envision the tomb-stone in production:

"RIP RIAA"

Just like rats abandoning a sinking ship, the RIAA is grasping
onto as many dollars as possible before their gravy train has left
the station!
Reply to this comment
Steven Marks is a loser and a liar
by bobby_brady October 18, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
Only a true idiot would believe the schit he spews.
Reply to this comment
Students already running darknets.
by inachu October 18, 2007 1:23 PM PDT
RIAA is going after the %2 threshold.
Where as the rest of the 98% are smart and have stopped using the public internet.
trusted networks is the key here.
Reply to this comment
Bad headline
by unknown unknown October 18, 2007 1:31 PM PDT
The headline seems to imply the RIAA is going to file suit against the universities and not the students.

I don't why anyone would settle through the RIAA's website. There is nothing preventing the RIAA or one of it's members from taking your cash and suing you and using your "settlement" as an admission of guilt in court. The RIAA and labels are not above sleazy tactics (payola and buying certain member of congress etc etc).
Reply to this comment
THAT'S ENOUGH!
by Gringras October 18, 2007 4:07 PM PDT
I, for one, have freaking had it with the g_dd_maned music labels.
I hereby declare a personal boycott of of ALL music purchases until
this foolishness ends! I invite others to also vote with their wallets
to put an end to this tyranny!
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
What do you expect from a generation raised by wolves!
by WJeansonne October 18, 2007 6:15 PM PDT
These kids are utterly unethical because they were never taught right from wrong. They truly believe they have every right to take what is not theirs. It's as simple as that.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Gets them publicity I guess
by sanenazok October 18, 2007 9:07 PM PDT
Not that suing already broke students makes that much sense, (really how could the RIAA ever collect???) I guess it accomplishes what RIAA actually wants - publicity that copying of music is not legal. Having been in college when the original Napster was looming large, I know that if you get the college students off of P2P a significant portion of the content from these networks would vanish. I guess back in those days broadband at home wasn't as available, but still you figure maaaaany of the files on P2P networks now are actually seeded from universities.

Hah, hope the RIAA tries to sue a bunch of state schools for copyright infringement - it wouldn't go far states and their institutions are immune from federal copyright claims! (see http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-114857873.html) So I hope state schools, at least, stand up to the RIAA, but that's unlikely since these schools are easily bribed with the smallest amount of money.
Reply to this comment
RIAA and Universities
by George Riddick October 18, 2007 9:23 PM PDT
Thank you, RIAA.

I know my viewpoint on this subject swims upstream from many of your readers. I do think it is healthy for people to consider both sides of an important argument like this, however. I hope your readers do, too.

We in the copyright industries, and we as users of legitimate copyrighted works, as well, owe a debt of gratitude to the RIAA for its efforts to combat piracy over the past decade in my view. It is the ONLY anti-piracy campaign that I am aware of that has actually worked. It has reduced digital music piracy. I have studied quite a few other antipireacy campaigns very extensively, and have never seen one nearly as effective.

Unfortunately some people will ONLY respond if threatened by expensive lawsuits or perhaps even time behind bars.

The RIAA didn't right the copyight laws in this country.

As a small graphic arts content development company that employs artists, designers, photographers, cartoonists, digitizers, writers, and programmers, we know what the actual damages in an industry without adequate copyright protection can be. They are plentiful. And we are talking about talented artistic people who make an average salary at best ... not studio, technology, or media company billionaires.

If you want to see the anti-copyright crowd in action, just travel to Russia, China, or Brazil and take a close look. It will likely make you sick. Practically everything is stolen. No industry could survive with stolen property rates such as this.

Universities need to set a copyright compliant example for our youth, or their public tax payer funding should be affected. Congress isn't wrong here in giving this option a serious look.

The RIAA really has been given no option by the EFF and some of their followers. We are not talking about a "Fair use" debate here. We are talking about flagrant theft, apparently often condoned, or otherwise ignored, by higher education officials.

I hear your readers scream when the RIAA goes after a single mother in Duluth who thumbs her nose at recording artists and their protected works. Thet say "why don't you go after the organizations and the bigger companies?"

So here, the RIAA listens to them and goes after select universities (with extensive documentation) and a rogue organization (Usenet.com) that profits from stolen property on a routine basis, and what do they do? Complain again.

I wonder if any of them have ever considered what living in a country without copyright protection would really be like?

Do they realize that copyrighted works are one of the few rights granted to each U.S. citizen in our constitution that still carries a significant economic value when distributed legally ... and garners respect from those countries who still envy the basic freedoms we have in this country?

Not to mention the joy of creative accomplishment and the pride of authorship that goes along with each copyrighted work.

Thanks, RIAA. We realize that in order to combat this piracy epidemic you cannot be selective in who you target. Copyright infringers ("pirates") need to be punished regardless of their economic, political, or social status. That is the ONLY way any enforcement activity will have the deterrent component that is so badly needed to win the war against willful pirates.

Thanks for listening.

George P.Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

griddick@imageline2.com
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
RIAA is a joke
by gwhitham October 19, 2007 6:31 AM PDT
They can sue all they want. It won't fix the problem only make other peoples lives worse. If they think that suing people is the answer they are in for a big suprise. You see, all of the worlds songs have already been copied, many times in fact. The RIAA doesn't get it. Who are they suing? Students? Poor people? Universities? Oh the RIAA is doing such a good job. The RIAA is a piece of crap and should be treated as such.
Reply to this comment
Death to RIAA
by felixderkater October 19, 2007 7:16 AM PDT
The RIAA is a tremendous joke.

What we need is good music, not fad music that you listen to a few times and toss.

Long live free music.

Death to audiocorporatism.
Reply to this comment
The music industry needs to think differently
by paulej October 19, 2007 6:50 PM PDT
The RIAA has certainly highlighted the issue of piracy, but why are people pirating music in the first place? Either they do not value it enough to buy it, cannot afford the price demanded for the work, or cannot get what they want in an electronic format they can use.

The biggest problem, without question -- and the RIAA knows this very well -- is that music has not been available in a suitable format. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of MP3 products on the market, yet it is virtually impossible to find a web site selling files in MP3 format. Amazon recently started selling MP3-encoded music recently, which I was very delighted to see. Is the RIAA suing people for copying products that could not be purchased otherwise? Rather than sue, make the products available!

For those who cannot afford the work or who do not value it enough to pay for it, then perhaps low-cost on-line sales of MP3 files will address that issue, too.

In fact, price and sales volume are the two key issues the music industry should consider. Music is a product that has very unique properties in that there is a lot of it and the "value" of any one song by any one person is almost zero. It's in a very different class than, say, an application like Microsoft Word, where the single copyrighted work has a lot of value to the user.

I have a theory that if the music was offered for sale at a very, very low price (e.g., just a few cents), people might treat it as disposable and not even bother with keeping copies of their own purchased music files. Perhaps they might visit a web site and create play lists, etc., and then the web site might charge them a small fee for transferring the files to their portable device, to stream it, or to download to their PC. Each download or transmitted stream equates to earned revenue. A single song may, in effect, be sold multiple times. And, at the right price, who would care?

To be successful, such sales sites would have to enable the users to create a complete list of all of their favorite songs and allow the users to create a (virtually) unlimited number of play lists. With such a system, one could connect a portable device and download files to it that are for jogging, for sad days, for parties, or whatever the mood/event might be.

Has the music industry conducted any research into the potential for such a sales model? Or, are they just bound and determined to fight an uphill battle with absolutely no winners? As I understand it, the age group that had traditionally purchased most music was between 14 and 24 years old. If that is correct, then suing people will do nothing to help boost sales to younger people and it will prove to be a never-ending cycle. As such, I think they're simply wasting their time and money.
Reply to this comment
Support Local Musicians and Online Indies
by starcannon October 20, 2007 11:03 AM PDT
As always with consumer based goods, and especially with non mission critical goods, simply control the situation with your wallet.
This is really simple folks, DON'T BUY BIG LABEL MUSIC, until such time as they become reasonable.
I have found a lot of great legitimately free indie music on the net, I have found a lot of great local musicians in my area, all because the RIAA's position on intellectual property is so draconian that I could no longer in good conscious support them financially through the bands that the various RIAA labels sign.
You can do the same, just don't be lazy and you'll be fine, oh and a local musician will thank you for taking the time to check them out and pay them $5~$20 for their cd (some even go on donation)
Reply to this comment
 See all 26 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

News Blog topics

Featured blogs

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right
  • News - Business Tech

    Chrome's JavaScript challenge to Silverlight

    The advent of Google's Chrome browser, software pros say, should spur a big speedup for JavaScript, which would raise its standing against Microsoft's Silverlight technology.

  • Gallery

    Photos: Top 10 reviews of the week

    Here are CNET Reviews' 10 favorite items from the past week, including the TiVo HD XL, Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H50, and the Dish Network's newest digital TV converter box.

  • News - Apple

    Apple watchers spot 'iPod Nano' pix, iTunes hints

    The rumor mill has long been predicting a longer, leaner new version of the iPod Nano, and now it's conjuring up some pictures.

  • Outside the Lines

    EIC Squared: Chrome, iPods, and a Dell-Salesforce union

    On this week's EIC Squared podcast CNET's Dan Farber and ZDNet's Larry Dignan discuss Google's latest rocket launch--the Chrome browser--as well as Apple's iPod event next week and a Dell-Salesforce.com union.

  • Video

    Katie Couric reflects on first Webcast

    The political conventions are over and so are CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric's first series of Webcasts. CNET's Kara Tsuboi sat down with Couric on the final night of the Republican National Convention to discuss what she liked about Webcasting, some of her most memorable guests, and whether TV news will still be around by the next round of conventions.

  • News - Digital Media

    At 10 years old, whither Google?

    Daniel Sieberg of CBS News looks at how the company grew exponentially from start-up to superstar and part of our culture, but what's ahead?

  • Video

    YouTube plays party politics

    During the presidential campaigning four years ago, YouTube didn't even exist. Now it's a tool candidates must master to get their message across. CNET's Kara Tsuboi stops by the YouTube upload booths at the Democratic and Republican conventions to find out why Google's video site has such a big presence in Denver and St. Paul, Minn.

  • News - Gaming and Culture

    Are Demo and TechCrunch50 fragmenting their audiences?

    With both events scheduled to start Monday, many press, as well as venture capitalists and others are having to choose which one to attend.

  • News - Cutting Edge

    Execs predict next Google-like tech

    On eve of company's 10-year anniversary, researchers and business pundits speculate about what technologies might someday have as much impact as Google.

  • Gallery

    Images: The art of 'Spore' prototypes

    Will Wright and his Maxis team worked on dozens of prototypes to test the elements of their soon-to-be-released evolution game. Here's a sampling.

  • Webware

    Mozilla releases second Firefox 3.1 alpha

    Added features include support for a new video tag element introduced with the HTML 5 standard, along with some speed enhancements.

  • Green Tech

    Duke Energy to invest in mini solar power plants

    Can hundreds of rooftop solar panels collectively operate like a central power plant? Duke Energy launches $100 million distributed solar program to find out.