More from the EFF:

Of course, file sharing continues unabated, and these P2P-related notices will simply push fans to use other readily-accessible technologies that the RIAA can't easily monitor -- copying music through iTunes over the campus LAN, swapping hard drives and USB flash drives, burning recordable DVDs, and forming ad hoc wireless networks.

So the RIAA's strategy still won't stop file sharing, but it certainly will cause collateral damage to academic freedom, free speech, and privacy. In a recently released report, the Brennan Center lays out what that cost looks like today based on interviews with representatives from 25 service providers including 10 from universities.

Universities are already being forced to waste substantial resources on doing the RIAA's dirty work. Flooded with machine-generated complaints, schools are unable to evaluate the merits of particular complaints. While lacking procedural safeguards to make sure students wrongly accused of infringement are not penalized, many schools have adopted stricter penalties than the law requires. Schools have also adopted network monitoring and filtering tools that interfere with legitimate expression.

The increase in P2P-related notices stands only to make matters worse. The RIAA's Cary Sherman states that the
increase in the notices is "something we feel we have to do," but blanket licensing provides a clear alternative to blanket lawsuits.

Read the Brennan Center's report:


Take action now to help stop the lawsuit campaign:


For this post and related links:

"Blanket licensing would provide a clear alternative to blanket lawsuits."

Nope. Too reasonable to be accepted by the RIAA.
For them, they'd rather use a whip than a carrot.
They enjoy oppressive forms of control.

It's not that it's too reasonable, it's that the major labels aren't the only ones who would be paid.

But it should be considered reasonable to expect to pay those who have a right to be paid. Avoiding what's right or fair is not reasonable. Being oppressive is unreasonable, too. . . an example being their style of litigation.
And the major labels, as we've sometimes pointed out before on these types of threads, are reluctant to abide by what's proper as well as what their financial obligations should be to adequately pay the artists that they've got under their thumb with those lopsided servitude contracts.

Bottom line:
Abiding by contractual obligations or what's right would seem to be reasonable in the minds of many. But the RIAA has not shown themselves to be reasonable or fair.
That's what I meant; it's a basic, underlying cartel character flaw for them.
Attitude is everything. Theirs reeks.

Rokatie, get lost.
Name one time you've submitted a worthwhile post since you registered with us two years ago.
(But then, I'm probably talking to the wind. I suspect rokatie is a bot.)

Someone else mused recently about why management doesn't just delete rokatie's account. I'd like to know that too. (Check out its history profile.)

My school blocks all major file sharing networks. But then again, there is other motivation aside from the RIAA's abusive relationship with universities and colleges.

I remember when my sister went to school (2000-2004), her network was so slow it probably took 5 mintues to load google.com. This was of course the height of Napster. Practically everyone in the dorms woke up in the morning and queued up 10 or so songs to download before they went to their classes, so they could listen to them when they got back. That is a lot of bandwidth being thrown around.

That being said, I'm kind of glad that the file sharing networks are being blocked since that kills the network speed. I have to do work using this connection after all. For the schools that actually have the connection speed to support it, and are being badgered by the RIAA, that saddens me.

Filesharing networks are generally slow and icky anyway. I can pretty much find anything I can on file sharing networks through use of a clever google search anyway.