By Jon Newton

The RIAA and MPAA have already successfully penetrated police forces and other enforcement agencies around the world and routinely use them as unpaid entertainment industry cops. Now, using thousands of subpoenas issued, very economically, from one Washington, DC, court-house, they're well on the way to doing the same thing with schools and ISPs across America.

Loyola, MIT, Boston College, Rensselaer, Penn State, Princeton and Michigan Tech are just a few of the teaching institutions the RIAA and MPAA are relentlessly bending to their will and when students turn up for their freshman orientation at Yale, this month, "We have new language in our undergraduate regulations and are planning an added emphasis on this [file sharing] topic," Yale general counsel Dorothy K. Robinson is quoted as saying in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser.

But there's far worse.

The two Hollywood-funded trade organizations have developed a scheme both devious in concept and frightening in application.

They're using a group of horribly naive, to put the best possible construction on the situation, administrators to turn American schools into direct under-the-counter marketing channels for Big Five 'product,' with the subpoenas as the entry points, and the Joint Committee of Higher Education and Content Communities as their cover.


For review and consideration
Online uploading and downloading represent in-your-face competition to the music industry and accordingly, must be stopped dead, or significantly curtailed, at the worst. The labels can then move in to fill at least some of the vacuum created by the discontinuance of file sharing in schools by supplying the schools with their own 'downloads'.

Anyone who doubts this has but to study the list of committee members at the bottom of this item.

Yale's Robinson, for example, sits on the committee, which has as its chairman Penn U president Graham Spanier. But the real power is the co-chair, RIAA president Cary-Sue Sherman.

The cover-title for Step One is Technology Opportunities for Addressing Issues Associated with Peer-to-Peer File Sharing on the University and College Campus. It came on April 28 and involves, "helping to reduce copyright infringement and bandwidth saturation that occur through widespread use of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing on college and university campuses".

These are euphemisms for snooping file-share networks and using the results to win subpoenas with which to intimidate administrators into handing over the names of students the RIAA claims were/are using school networks for file sharing.

"After a period of review by Joint Committee representatives, a report documenting the technical characteristics of proposed solutions will then be distributed to university and college representatives for review and consideration," says the committee web page here. "The idea is to create a reliable knowledge base of information about the technologies available for addressing copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks."

For 'knowledge base' read a list of companies who'd love to open up US schools as POS (point of sale) points, and for 'technologies available for addressing copyright infringement' read RIAA and MPAA sponsored software and hardware products.

But the title for Step Two, which seeks, "information on available or planned technologies that might include such tools as traffic auditing; bandwidth shaping; file blocking, screening, and filtering; and network performance analysis," says it all.

It's Opportunities for Online Distribution of Music, Movies, and Other Digital Content on the University and College Campus..

Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities Members

Higher Education Representatives
Molly Corbett Broad; president, University of North Carolina; John L. Hennessy, president, Stanford University; Charles Phelps; provost, University of Rochester; Dorothy K. Robinson, vp and general counsel, Yale University; nd, Graham Spanier (Cochair), president, Pennsylvania State University.

Staff
Mark Luker, vp, EDUCAUSE; Shelley Steinbach, vp and general counsel, American Council on Education; John Vaughn, executive vp, and, Association of American Universities.

Entertainment Industry Representatives
Roger Ames, chairman and ceo, Warner Music Group; Matthew T. Gerson, senior vp, US Public Policy and government relations, Vivendi Universal; Sherry Lansing, chair, Paramount Pictures; Hilary Rosen, ex-chair and ceo, RIAA; Cary Sherman (cochair)
president, RIAA; and, Jack Valenti, president and ceo, MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).

Staff
Fritz Attaway, executive vp, government relations and Washington general counsel, MPAA; Troy Dow, vp and general counsel for technology and new media, MPAA; Mitch Glazier, senior vp, government relations and legislative counsel, Vivendi Universal; Barry Robinson, senior counsel for corporate affairs, RIAA; and, Jonathan Whitehead, vp and anti-piracy counsel,
RIAA.

Technology Task Force of the Joint Committee

Higher Education Members
Charles Phelps (chair); Dave Lambert, vp and cio, Georgetown University; and, Michael McRobbie, vp for information technology and cio, Indiana University

Task Force Staff
Mark Luker, vp, EDUCAUSE

Entertainment Industry Liaisons to the Technology Task Force
Cary Sherman (senior liaison); Joseph Cates, vp, advance technology, Universal Music Group; Dr Richard Gooch, IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry); Brad Hunt, senior vp and cto, MPAA; and, Jonathan Whitehead, MPAA.

Liaison Staff
Bruce Block, senior vp for technology, RIAA.

=========

Send me one ! I'm out of toilet paper!!

whahahahahaha

watch out RIAA ! another Boston tea party is on the way!

Ok, that's it. I'm heading off to the nearest Universitie's computer and I am installing Kazaa lite, uploading a Ga-zillion files and walking out the door. No one will know who did it. Might I recommend we do this at local librarys and Cafe's. Just dump a crap load of mp3's etc off some discs and let it upload and NEVER go back to that computer again.

well worth it....to bad i don't have our college id card.
and i don't know if the library's here have internet access

"The RIAA and MPAA have already successfully penetrated police forces and other enforcement agencies around the world and routinely use them as unpaid entertainment industry cops."

Ummm...those are OUR tax dollars at work. If the RIAA wants to use OUR law enforcement agencies as THEIR PERSONAL CORPORATE UNPAID ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY COPS, let the RIAA pay their salaries! There are more important things that these cops need to be doing...like their jobs!

The colleges are in a bind because, according to what I've read, they've collectively spent over a million dollars dealing with this file sharing issue. Also, I'm sure they'd prefer not to see their student being sued. Nevertheless, to see them buckle under to the RIAA/MPAA's campaign of intimidation is disturbing. I think our best hope is the telecom companies (Pac Bell and others). If they can get relief from having to be internet cops then that would put a stop to this nonsense.

I can't blame colleges for making rules about it. I mean, if you were running a major school and there was a possibility that some of your students could be "breaking the law" and could result in you losing money, wouldn't you take some precautions? I mean, I don't think any of this is right, but you can't blame 'em for not wanting to lose funding.

Tip of the hat,
Captain C

whats with this "bandwidth saturation"?students pay ALOT of money to go to college, meaning internet access along with downloading is included in the tuition. they pay for it, so they should be able to download as much stuff as they want. if you have "bandwidth saturation" problems, use the money that the students pay you, and fix the damn problem, without telling what the students can and cant do.

OK, this story REALLY pissed me off. Thank god I have only one year left at college (and I never lived on campus anyway, so I've been free to do whatever I want online).

I agree with Captain about the colleges making rules for limiting p2p use. REAL LIFE EXAMPLE: When Napster was huge at SLU's campus back in 2000-2001, so much bandwitdh of our university network was going to filesharing that my department of meteorology couldn't even acquire much-needed radar and satellite data from online... Thus my program suffered from lack of data necessary for classes, and some had to be cancelled because of it.

HOWEVER, the complete casual disregard for PRIVACY on a campus network must be discussed. But, since the RIAA and MPAA have the universities by the balls, privacy means nothing. The universities would rather much not get sued and face negative PR (much like our power-hungry corporations), which could result in a decline of applications in the future.

Another VERY disturbing facet of this particular "joint operation" is the complete denial of voice from our side- the file sharers, the indie artists, the college students, the software developers, etc etc. God, would I love to see a situation where students who share on p2p revolt for lack of voice on the issue.

Enough is enough. "Old media will always try to stop new media. Phase one is to try to stop the new media [MP3 technology]. That didn't work. Now they're in phase two, which is trying to control the new media. Let's hope they hurry up and get to phase three, which is where they figure out how to use the new media." -Michael Weiss, Streamcast Media.

MAY I ASK WHEN THEY ARE GONNA DO WHAT THEY DID BY THEIR WORD? I MEAN, THEY SHOULD BE STOPPING THIER INVESTIGATION RIGHT NOW, TODAY IS THE DAY FOR THEM TO STOP, THEY EVEN SAID IT IN THEIR ANNOUNCMENT 3 MONTHS AGO, IT WILL END ON AUGUST 10-11TH 11TH AT THE LATEST.... ITS THE 11TH, AND I HAVENT HEARD A SINGLE FFRIGGEN THING. WHY?

'Toldja... The REAL REASON that the riaa actions are goin' on is to eliminate the competition..been sayin it for years.

ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Just remember folks,
WHAT WE DO IN OUR OWN HOMES IS OUR BUSINESS. So if you get dragged into court over p2p, repeat this to the judge and to the press. Put some authority in your voice. Make them sound like the criminals they are. Like YOU are the one that has been wronged. The media are scumbags but they love nothing more than a victim story. Think about it. Everytime some 10 year old hick falls in a hole, they tun with there cameras. When people see an average Joe's home being permeated by a huge company, people will see the picture alot more clearly. 'Victory or Death!'

technolgy task force? that sounds like some retarded superhero team that runs around in tights and strapon dildos, saying "kids, only you can stop filesharing". anyone here a comic book artist? i have some really good ideas.

haha xao216, thats great. You formed a HIlarious picture in my mind and made my day.

Tip of the hat,
Captain C

First off let me say that I do not support the RIAA. However, they are not out there to eliminate the competion. They are a group of lawyers who specialize in copyright law. They lobby using millions of dollars stolen from a tax that comes from recording artist CD's (2%) and tax from CD writers (2%). Yes they actually have a tax on CD writers. anyway, they use that money to prevent changes in copyright law which would reduce penalties drastically for P2Pers. In normal civil law you would be charged about 6 dollars a song( 2 for compensatory damages and 4 for 200% punitive damages). However, despite the fact that most non-RIAA copyright laywers believe that we need to treat copyright suits just like any civil suit instead of having a $750 minimum per infrindgement(or individual songs). This means that if you downloaded 20 songs you would pay a minimum of $15000 instead of $60 like you would normally get in a civil suit. Lets put it this way, if Joe tripped and caused John to drop his CD and It broke he would pay $40-$60 in civil court for damages. However, If John was an RIAA member and he found joe downloading twenty songs he could sue him for $15000. It is very important to keep in mind that the RIAA's Obligation is to label holders and not artist. They Have no intention of destroying competition because they work for the competition. THIS IS NOT THE ARTIST FAULT, THEY HAVE NO SAY IN ANY OF THIS. J-Lo will not see a dime the RIAA makes because the RIAA keeps all the money made + 2% of Each CD she creates. If the RIAA keeps all the money why would record labels still pay and be represented by them? Because the labels are greedy and convinced that they are losing money to filesharing. Who convinced them? The RIAA

Anyone want to comment?

Rightoshare: Love the Boston Tea Party comment!!! I'm with you!!! Hey, does anyone listen to classic house music on this site??? I do. I'm sooooo glad the RIAA doesn't own any of the indie labels which made or are making the house music I love. Like LFO for instance.

Nobody's listening to me

johnofarc:

Of course, the RIAA would argue that if your share a file, the loss to them is multiplied by the number of people who download from you, and the people who download from them, and so on. Therefore, $150,000 per song, by their convoluted reasoning. They're taking advantage of everyone.

MY QUICK ANALYSIS
I have always found it to be of value to examine an enemy looking at the situation from THEIR point of view.
The RIAA seems to be exemplified by Cary-Sue. He is a lawyer. A lawyer's approach to problem solving is to sue people. They also tend to not give a damn about other people and don't care how much suffering they cause, how many lives they ruin, as long as they "win" the verdict. They also look at the world in terms of duty...not an ethical or moral duty, but a legal duty. The legalistic perspective on the word is a sad way to look at things. It's an "alls fair in love and war" approach. The RIAA has a problem, and part of their problem has been stated over and over. Record labels have been able to pretty much, control music for the last 100 years.
They have also been able to screw musicians over for most of that time period. But,then, computers became into general usage, and digital music formats were born. WAV files in general were not a threat because you couldn't play them in your car, and they generated giant files. AU formats never caught on, and MIDIs.."fuhgedaboudit". But, then came the MP3 and the ability to burn CD tunes to a hard drive, and then, heaven forbid, share and burn them to CDs. In general, they were losing control...and when people who have had control over something a long time, and made millions from it, when they start to lose control, they get desperate, and when lawyers get desperate, they sue. Before the DMCA, this whole insanity would not have been feasbile, but then, the DMCA became law, and it opened the door to lawsuits from heck.
Layered on top of this, is the fact that it is generally held that you get one good song on an album and the rest is crap nowadays. The customer justifiably feels ripped off.
And, I think the RIAA really , at some level, believes that they (the labels) are getting ripped off and that people who downlaoding songs, just download songs for free and never buy any songs.
The RIAA is desperate to stop this, with the mistaken belief that if people cannot download, they will buy.
They are trying to force people to buy their crap.
Given this scenario, is it any wonder we are here?
Now, getting back into my puffy lipped Cary-Sue mindset, the thing that would really worry me, is for thousands or millions to start demanding that Congress start investigating the RIAA, especially this "Non-Profit" status. I would be scared to death for fear that Congress would start audting the books, and looking into every little thing. And, what would bring that about? Yep, thousands or millions of voters from around the country bombarding their reps and demanding an investigation.
What may happen...if downloading slows considerably on P2P networks, and record sales continue to drop dramatically, it becomes harder and harder to pin the cause for record sales in the toilet, to P2P. When chain record stores start going belly up, and sales at Best Buy, Wal*Mart, etc. start tanking, Cary-Sue and his toadies will start to panicking, because they have attacked P2P, which is the distribution network of the future, and they have already made enemies out of the potential P2P customers that they might have ever had a chance with.
As people start to turn more to Indie music, control for the RIAA and big labels will slip farther and farther away, and they will use more and more desperate measures to try to re-establish control. The writing is on the wall though. Music as an industry is in transition. As Indie groups get more exposure, and transition to a web based distribution and sales model.
And, as people revolt against the heavy handed tactics of these shysters and label execs, it will finally be time for THEM to face the music, and realize that this is their last dance.
~code

xao216

I think that's one hell of an idea !
An underground comic book showing the truth . Maybe we could print it and get some distributed through out high schools and universities .

Let me know what you think .

WABBITMAN

Code ,

As usual , you nailed it .
Only if we know our enemies we can defeat them .

btw Glad to see you're back ,my friend .

WABBITMAN

johnofarc,
The system is screwed up:
1. The RIAA is trying to bypass the 4th ammendment. You know, illegal search.
2. The copywrite laws are not practical. Today, every song is owned until 70 years after the death of the artist. 120 years if the song is a collaboration.

Folks are just exercising their right to free speech and civil disobedience.

johnofarc,
The system is screwed up:
1. The RIAA is trying to bypass the 4th ammendment. You know, illegal search.
2. The copywrite laws are not practical. Today, every song is owned until 70 years after the death of the artist. 120 years if the song is a collaboration.

Folks are just exercising their right to free speech and civil disobedience.

Ifeelfree has a point- rather than say you have a pirated copy of a song on your hardrive and saying that it is illegal, the RIAA is working backwards. They are not saying that having a particular song on your drive is wrong (which would be absolutely unprovable anyways), they are saying that by SHARING that song, you are basically giving it away for free and infringing on their rights as distributors. They make their money by distributing music and P2P is cutting in on their profit margin. I could be wrong , not knowing a single thing about copyright law, but based on simple fact and motive, this makes perfect sense. How could the RIAA possibly say that my ripped MP3 of Pearl Jam's Indifference didn't come off my Pearl Jam CD?

(***Satire***Joke***Humor***Parody***)

We’re here at the lovely 15-acre home of Mr. Scumbucket McGreedy, noted RIAA spokesperson and anti-filesharing advocate to discuss the state of the RIAA’s new Sue Everybody Policy Initiative.

Interviewer: Mr. McGreedy, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. And may I say what a lovely home you have here with this wonderful view of the ocean.

McGreedy: Call me Scum, everybody does. I hope you don’t mind doing this here by the outdoor pool.

Interviewer: Not at all Mr. Ah… Scum.

McGreedy: I thought it would be better than the office, and it’s not my day of the week to go into town anyway, chauffeur’s day off. Damn Pirate! Here, can I get you a drink? L’arse, L’arse! Be a good boy and get me two Slow Comfortable Screws! Hurry up! Chop Chop!

Interviewer: Is that? Isn’t that…? I mean….?

McGreedy: Yes, when I don’t have him suing his fans, I use him as my pool boy. Looks good in that thong doesn’t he?

Interviewer: Well… umm… Scum, let me ask you about the Sue Everybody Policy. I understand you’ve got thousands of subpoenas going out to people of all ages all across the country?

McGreedy: That’s right. We’ve been very successful! Why Pirate user numbers on KaZaa alone are down by over 1,000,000!

Interviewer: But Scum, what does that have to do with copyright infringement?

McGreedy: Piracy! It’s all about Piracy! Those Freebooters are cutting into our action! And we won’t stand for it! I’ll have them keelhauled! Keelhauled I tell you! I’ll make them all walk the plank! Feed them to the sharks, that’s my motto. Feed them to the sharks!

[I was beginning to sense that this was not the first Slow Comfortable Screw of Scumbucket’s day]

Interviewer: Mr. McGreedy, won’t the number of people using KaZaa be unrelated to the number of copyright infringers?

McGreedy: Call me Scum, everybody does. Pirates! They’re all Pirates! Where’s that damn L’arse with my Slow Comfortable Screw? L’arse!

Interviewer: So you mean, you’re telling me, if people run KaZaa… even if they’re not sharing any files… you’ll see the number of users as a direct rebuke of you’re Sue Everybody Initiative?

McGreedy: L’arse! Damn that boy, probably into the liquor again. Pirates! You know he used to be a Pirate? Used to be a Pirate till we fixed him! Fixed him good! Pirates!

Interviewer: You mean he encouraged fans to share his music?

McGreedy: Pirates! All damn Pirates! We fixed him and we’ll fix them. Damn Pirates!

Interviewer: I’m not sure what you mean… ah… Scum…?

McGreedy: Fixed him. Cut off his balls. Just like we’ll cut off the balls of all those other pirates!

[Sensing a possible headline, and in spite of the ugly sight of a loud fat drunken overweight slob being the source, your intrepid interviewer pressed on.]

Interviewer: “Cut off their balls”?

McGreedy: Right! Cut off their balls! Get to them when they’re just starting out. Grab them when they’re just beginning they’re education at university and cut off their balls! Pirates! Keelhaul the lot of them! Pirates! We’ll fix them!

Interviewer: Do you mean… ah… Scum, do you mean this new initiative to work with universities to educate students on the legalities of copyright infringement?

McGreedy: Pirates! Hilary was right! Cut of their balls! Pirates! Take all their money and if they have any left for school, cut off their balls! L’arse! L’arse honey; bring me my Slow Comfortable Screw! That’s a good boy!

[Interviewer terminates interviewer at this point as L’arse returned and drunken Scumbucket seemed no longer able to focus on any meaningful conversation.]

(***Satire***Joke***Humor***Parody***)

Surf side 6
The problem legally is not that copyright laws are out of date. The problem is that the issue can never be presented because Lobbyist make sure to tell every politicion that they will become an enemy of media conglomerates, who happen to control the most important campaign tool of all: the news. While this is not 100% proven it can be assumed to be likely that since most lobbyist groups use money as a leverage, the media would use it's most valued resource. Most people born before 1975 see this as an attempt to steal what doesn't belong to you but the fact is that since songs cost an estimated 2 time what they did two decades ago (In economic comparison) we will not lay down 18.99 only to realize that you have just wasted money on a CD that cost just as much as A FREAKIN CD PLAYER. I'll tell you one thing, an eight track player never costed as much as a album, and a casette player never equalled its' own median in value. WTF next? Cars will cost as much as a tank of gas? Sorry for ranting. anyway the point that I hid so well in thier is that it is a problem that I believe you all are too optimistic about. It will die one of two ways. Either a court ruling will give immunity to all who stop file trading as of X day, or the RIAA will be tired from the numbers they persi.... I mean prosecute or have a scandel. If you want me to comment again later just ask.

http://www.petitiononline.com/riaawar/petition-sign.html?

my bad thats the link for a petition against the riaa...

wabbit
yeah man, thats exactly what i was thinking

CERTIFICATES


http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh1 .pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh2 .pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh3 .pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh4 .pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh5 .pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh6 .pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh7 .pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh8 .pdf

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free;
While God is marching on.

Johnofarc: The essential problem here is that computers have advanced incredably fast, from beeping badly in the 80's to multimedia machines with broadband in the early 00's. Because of this, copyright law is not suited to handleing these new situations. Even worse, the people who decide the legal issues and dictate the policies that update these laws are all either polititions or judges, both of those jobs are a very long-term carrier. By the time someone has risen through the ranks enough to actually make decisions that count they are usually too old to properly understand the effects of computers, and so cannot make well informed decisions. This also makes them vulnerable to misinformation from lobbyists or biased/brought 'experts' who tell them how the entire media industry will collapse if they dont support them. If the people who wrote the Constitution all had laptops we probably wouldn't have copyright law at all, because it would have been obvious to them the whole idea was rediculous Many of the people with influence now still dont know how to use computers, and it is common knowledge that an email to one of them will be ignored while an identical letter on paper will be noticed, even if quickly dismissed. This is why so many recent laws, proposed laws and court decicions seem so, well, stupid. The people makeing them do not know enough about the issues.

Not only that, goldenpi, lobbyist-lackey congress has distorted the intent of the copyright law. After a certain time, the invention or song or whatever is supposed to enter the public domain, so that natural evolution can occur. When the greedhead Riaa,..and drug companies, and movie producers, and software companies, and mouse-eared entertainment congloms entered the picture, the law became hideously warped. So the law is plainly wrong. My question is, what are we willing to do to change it...or change it back to its original intent? To quote a famous founding document..."Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.."

yo,justed...!

It's our God given rights for which WE must fight,
Our Constitution is stolen in the night,
Our Constitution is almost out of sight,
Our Constitutional Rights!!!

Keep Fighting!!!!!!!!!

#9491~~~BOYCOTT YOUR BEAURORATS!!!

*****THE EAGLE***** HAZ FINALLY LANDED!!!!!!

@ Jazzmary2U - Date: August 12, 2003 @ 5:38 PM

Thank you for your kind words (/ reaction).

Sometimes I’m not sure just how things I’ve said have been taken.

To digress:
· It was an exercise in dialogue
· It was an attempt at humor (“Just call me Scum – everybody does.”)
· It was not an attack on any one specific RIAA drone (/ musician)
· It was an exercise in psychology meant to touch on delicate sensibilities by combining use of imagery and specific reference to the drink “Slow Comfortable Screw” (3/4 oz. Vodka, 1/2 oz. sloe gin, 1/2 oz. Southern Comfort, fill with orange juice - serve in highball glass)

But to return to topic, it was to illustrate my impression of the RIAA’s attitude vis-à-vis:
· Copyright infringers
· RIAA’s impression of the drop in KaZaA and other filesharing program users
· Students

Jazzmary2U, some things can best be expressed with words in exposition (sic), some by prose, some by poetry, and (as I’m sure you and so many others know) some by music.

I believe in trying to find the most effective.


A Poem

If I could write a poem...
...the effect would be quite clear.
The world would wake to sanity
...that marked the death of fear.

If I could write a poem...
...the words would not be new.
For though they have been said before
...I know the words I'd choose.

If I could write a poem...
...what good would it really do?
To just repeat what's oft' been said
...but never heard by you?

For, if you're really listening
...and if you've really heard...
...I needn't write a poem...
...I needn't say a word.

-justed

THE FILE SHARING MANIFESTO

So now the greedy pigs that run the music industry want to play rough. What’s the matter, their coke dealer won’t front anymore? Those techno-ghouls have been living high on the hog for the past 100 years and now they’re upset because the river of gold is down 10%. If they want to play rough, so can we. The only reason they can afford to pay their lawyers is because we all still buy CDs.

This is not about intellectual property. That's an issue that can be dealt with later. This is about corporate power gone mad and trampling individual freedom. Just because I have a file on my hard drive and someone else can see that it's there through P2P doesn't mean that anything has been copied. If I leave my door unlocked and somebody comes in my house and copies a CD is that my fault?

No one deserves the kind of treatment that a few poor individuals are getting set up for. We have to act, and act now. There is only one proper response to the file sharing attack – a complete and total boycott of all new recorded music purchases. Imagine if you got a summons in the mail. We must support our file sharing brothers and sisters. I SAY NO PURCHASES OF ANY NEW CDS OR DOWNLOADS UNTIL THEY CHANGE THE LAW ON FILE SHARING!! If you want music go to a show, or buy or trade used CDs.

Lets show those thugs who the real boss is – the consumer!

Copy this and spread the word!

dont buy music make your own !!!!

This is not kosher. Rock the Casbah!

"Graham Spanier, president of Penn State University, has been pushing for a “music technology” fee to be built into the costs of attending college."

I do not want any hidden cost built into the HIGH costs of attending college. Paying for college is hard enough. RIAA keep your music off campus. Sell it outside the gates. Is not the student fees suppose to be for educational, social, are real student costs. The RIAA are not providing any service that students need in their quest for a degree. If they want to visit itunes or that dismal site Buymusic.com then let the students do that. What about students who don't plan to use that service. Will they still have the cost for keeping the recording industry in business added to the college cost. I gonna be real p*ssed if this goes through. The university will catch the flack as well as the RIAA. I don't want to hear about how they are the victim too. I usually just read, but I can't believe this is happening. Am I right or wrong about this fee.

Someone take that link out of there if possible. I don't want to advertise for Buymusic. That site sucks. forgot about hyperlinks.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2003-08-13-sinrod_x.htm

what a joke?

im still hoping the try and sue me, i could use the publicity