The Triangle

Dan Steinberg is right, of course: it would be terrific if new modalities were developed by the recording industry. But the bottom line today is that any student who takes someone else's copyrighted music and shares it with others is considered a thief; and for RIAA, it's now an easy thing for them to prosecute - all the forms are written, the processes in place, the attorneys ready to go. Playing the old way just means you're placing a $3000 minimum bet. What's in your wallet?

I never downloaded music from the internet until the RIAA started attacking people for it. Then I learn about mp3s and started learning about downloading music.

Prior to the RIAA stupidity I bought between 2-3 CDs month. After learning about online music (ten years ago), I found all kinds of music I had never been exposed to and my CD purchases went up to around 10 a month.

Still the RIAA continued with it's onslaught against its customers. About three years ago, I simply stopped seeking out new music online. It wasn't worth the potential hassle from the RIAA. Since I am no longer being exposed to new music and new artists, my CD purchases have dropped again. And since I am disgusted at an industry that attacks it customers -- I am buying no more new CDs period. I'm 35 years old and have around 2500 CDs. I have all the music I'll need for the rest of my life.

Good job RIAA. You turned one of your best customers -- into a hated foe. You complain the sales figures are down and its because of illegal file sharing. You don't know what you are talking about -- your sales numbers are down because you have alienated millions of your customers and an entire generation.

So what happens now -- are you going to sue me if I download a new mp3 copy of "Take it on the Run"? I bought the record; I bought the cassette -- twice. And I bought the CD. I shouldn't have to pay for it again. Yup -- piss on your customers and wonder why your business is failing.

I thought I had accidentally found my way into the news archives when I saw this story. While I feel empathy for the defendants, there is also a level of incredulity. Don't we remember the RIAA suing an 8-year old girl a few years back? Have we learned nothing in today's digital age? The RIAA is going to come after individuals as a supplement for their own incompetence, and those exposing files to music sharing websites are simply allowing the RIAA to continue to exert their force. Im not even sure its so much the procurement of music as it is the sharing of files. Is it so hard to disable sharing rights on these file sharing programs? Its an expensive lesson to learn. I hate Steve Jobs – and I think the usability of iTunes is akin to a project created by 3rd graders – esp with today's focus on HCI and other interaction / usability heuristics pervasive on the web. However, is there not a better source for inexpensive downloads that placates the thirst of the RIAA for frivolous lawsuits? Suck it up, get an iPod, and quit handing free money over to the RIAA.

Drexel should take the same stand as the University of Maine and the University of Wisconsin-Madison and refuse to forward these settlement letters without a subpoena. To quote John Diamond of the University of Maine,

"It's not the university's role to, in effect, serve papers on our students for another party."

Drexel should take the same stance. They're under no obligation to assist the *IAA unless legally compelled.