A Lesson In Copyright Law

Are College Students The Recording Industry's Worst Enemy?

(CBS)  They used to be the music industry's best customers. Now they're its biggest pirates: college kids.

Instead of buying songs for 99 cents each, legally, on sites like iTunes, the Internet has given them instant access to free music.

"It seems so easy that it's almost not like stealing," a University of Southern California student named Paul told CBS News business correspondent Anthony Mason.

Mason asked college students if they illegally download all of their music.

"Not all of it," a student named Brianna told him.

But they do download most of it, according to some USC students — even though the recording industry has sent threatening letters here. Do the letters scare them?

"No matter what they do, it's never gonna stop completely," Paul said.

A real-time readout of illegal downloads puts the problem in perspective.

Downloaders go by in the hundreds per second — requests for Buddy Holly, Miles Davis, Avril Lavigne and many others.

These are big numbers.

"They're terrifying numbers for the recording industry," said Eric Garland, the head of bihchampagne.com. a research group that tracks illegal traffic.

Today alone, reports Mason, Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" was downloaded illegally more than 137,000 times.

For every song that is downloaded legally, how many are downloaded illegally?

"At least, very conservatively, at least 20," Garland said.

That’s right, 20 to one. It took iTunes five years to sell 2 billion songs. But there are 1 billion illegal downloads every month.

"The world now, more often than not, gets its music for free, gets its music online and gets its music without permission," Garland said. "That's broken. That is not a marketplace."

And if the music industry can't find a solution, it's looking more and more like the song is over.

[akeith106]

Today's musicians don't seem to realize the importance of getting their music out into the world. I am one of those people that like to try or experience something before I buy it. I wont buy an album if I can't hear it first, and I'm not talking about the 30 second clips that most sites let you hear.

If it weren't for listening to the entire song, I'd never buy the album.

[michellem99-2009]

I would rather buy the CDs. I like CDs. If I like the music I find in a record store on CD. I don't use an mp3 player.

[grumpy1968]

While it is true that a lot of students download music so do a "number" of other people in the world. Let's not lay the blame totally on college kids. This article does not point out some of the other reasons people do this kind of thing. Such as Digital Rights Management! How would you like to buy an automobile only to be told by the dealereship that they maintain control over when you can drive it! Why would any consumer buy digital music when the music they "buy" can only be played on certain players.

I am one of the reasons why cd sales are dropping. I don't buy the garbage that is put out with this digital rights management. Now if only other consumers would speak with their money, by not spending it on DRM laden music, maybe the labels and the riaa would rethink their business models. In other words produce some good music, at a fair price!, without telling the consumer when and how they must listen to it!!

[gunnerv1]

RIAA offers to settle for $3000.00 out of court, if you contest it, you are hit with a $750.00 "Per" download. There are a few at the University (rated in the top 5 for illeagle downloads) I work at shi* their pants when they go notified about an upcoming court apperance unless they settle. Both of my Daughters have been warned that they will not get any help from their mother or I. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

[charlesdjohn]

There are more than two sides to this issue. First, there are the recording companies and the artists who finally have a way to track some aspects of illegal music copying. Then there are the young adults and teens who will use ever means at their disposal to listen to the music they like, when they like and how they like. Not mentioned very often are the radio stations who play 10 minutes of commercials and 5 minutes of music that are driving people away because they cant stand the static. Television is the same way, from what I remember you would get less than 20 minutes of show for every 10 minutes of commercials (STATIC). I haven't had television in over 4 years now and it has been almost as long since I listened to radio. I read about a lot of complaints from Hollywood and the Music Industry about pirating. They want to sell an album full of junk just to get one good sound track. The movie industry wants to force you to watch all the previews every time you watch a movie that you purchased and then they complain if you copy the movie to remove the BS or make a copy for the kids to watch in the car so that the original does not get destroyed by heat, dirt and what ever else happens to be lurking in the back seat when children are there.

[charlesdjohn]

Sorry,

I ran out of space....

If the music industry decides to let you download then they want to control how you can listen to the music you paid for. Instead of complaining about someone stealing a Buddy Holly song they should be happy that todays youth would want to listen to that instead of the total garbage being produced by the music industry. What if we all turned off the television, radios, iPods and stopped listening for just a week? Silence is not only Golden, it can be down right inspirational!

[bragdonec0]

I support free downloading, I myself "pirate" music and enjoy it. But if it were not for free downloads, I would never experience the music of certain artists because I can not afford $15 a CD for 10 tracks of complete junk and one good song. If I download music and enjoy it, chances are, that I will attempt to see them concert, whatever genre it may happen to be. That is where the money. The artists make *** off of CD sales, the money is in concerts and shows. So yes, I may get there music for free, but I do support the better artists by seeing them live, how the music should be heard.
I have 2 friends that just got hit with these settlement cases, college kids. Paying for college is hard enough these days without this ***. Wait until we are out of college atleast before hitting us with lawsuits.

[mountainzen]

From the article: Today alone, reports Mason, Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" was downloaded illegally more than 137,000 times.

Well, I doubt anybody can argue that Bruce (or any of famous musician/group) is going to go broke because of this.

Yet intellectual property is property. If patents were freely ripped off we might see fewer and fewer people inventing things. If novels were ripped off, we might see fewer and fewer novels written.

The music industry might try lowering the price from $.99 to like $.25 a track. If the ratio is one legal download to 20 illegal, just reducing this to one out of two would be a huge improvement for them. Dropping the price down would go a long way towards this. People aren't downloading things illegally to spite them. They're doing it to save cash.

[Razzl]

Without wanting to excuse the illegality of it, it needs to be pointed out whenever this subject comes up that the industry has set its own table on piracy by bringing up a generation of high school students who couldn't afford the overpriced cd products in stores and grew accustomed to taking it for free. RIAA members could have looked for the price point where volume makes up for lower prices, but they just didn't want to. Now those high school students are today's college students and have learned to take what they can't afford.

As for itunes, it should be understood that rights management software and quirky ipod behavior makes buying tunes from that source less than helpful for people who want to store them on non-ipods or burn them to disc. The industry must bear much of the blame for thinking only of themselves and not of the customers...

[omega39-2009]

Television is the same way, from what I remember you would get less than 20 minutes of show for every 10 minutes of commercials (STATIC). I haven't had television in over 4 years now and it has been almost as long since I listened to radio.
Posted by CharlesDJohn

Thats why most popular television shows appear on the Bit Torrent network (commercial free)within a couple of hours of broadcast and why on any given day Bit Torrent accounts for one quarter of the internet traffic.

[omega39-2009]

The music industry might try lowering the price from $.99 to like $.25 a track. If the ratio is one legal download to 20 illegal, just reducing this to one out of two would be a huge improvement for them.
Posted by bragdonec0

Exactly, Walmart has many of the latest movies for under $10 and many of them are under $5, at that point it becomes more cost effective to just buy the thing rather then go through all the trouble and time of downloading and rendering a file.

[cgesualdo]

"The industry charges too much money" is not a good excuse for illegal behavior. $1 per track is a pretty good price, although I wouldn't argue if they wanted to lower it. However, lowering the prices isn't going to change this behavior. People are going the illegal route because they don't want to pay for anything they can get on the internet for free. If it's available for free somewhere, they're going to continue to get it that way, even if tracks only cost a quarter from a legal site.

[gunnerv1]

Just be warned. Every time you go "on line" you are also "broadcasting" your computers ID. You are not as unknown as you may think that you are. They know where you live, work and play.

[gunnerv1]

Pay the dime, or do the time, There's no such thing as a "free" lunch.

[dexter0011]

This segment was a waste of air time.

Tell me something I don't know. How about the need to change the business model and what the industry is doing to make it happen.

[mountainzen]

Many valid points being made here...

Ease of downloading a file might help sell more songs. If you have to convert from .aap file to MP3 when using iTunes, and an illegal site has the MP3 for free, who is going to go to iTunes? Also, the record industry has copy protection on their songs, but the illegal ones don't, who wants the one that's copy guarded?

CD's are recorded in "WAV" format--that's better than MP3, but not many people know or care. The record industry has to change its model and listen to the consumer instead of suing 11 year-old kids and grandmothers. If they made it *easier* to buy songs, songs that are in the format you want without restrictions they would sell more songs.

[kkcbs]

"Now those high school students are today's college students and have learned to take what they can't afford."

Sheesh -- can't afford a new car? NO PROBLEM, JUST TAKE IT! Idiots...

[gordon.couger]

I don't listen to music much so this isn't much to me but scientific journals are & there isn't a lot of differace except we try harder to change the law but a lot of people pretty much ignore the law. The same problems and law effects us both.

If you don't pay the artist they can't afford to put out as much music.

The net can replace most of the rest of the music Industry but it will be a lot different. They do provide value added but not nearly as much as they they pay most artist. If the Music industry wants to survive as they are they have to deal with the Internet not try to fight it.

With the cost of a recording studio in every ones reach. The industry lost the lock they had on it. We are all much less likely to steal from the artist than some faceless corporation that has fought us at ever turn and sues little kids because the kid can't afford to go to court.

It will take a while for the artist and the buyer to work out ways to cut the music company out of the loop but the music company doesn't get their act together they will go the way TV & movies are fast headed.

At least I can watch some of the TV shows I miss in a few days on my 24 inch IMac which is the main reason I bought the big screen. And as an added benefit there almost no commercials yet. I don't like Apples ITune model of selling crippled music.

The net is rapidly changing the way most intellectual property is exchanged & laws don't stop the public will if they are too far apart.

Gordon

[dandlion0099]

An interesting discussion (part 1)
CharlesDJohn (under)states "There are more than two sides to this issue..."
It really looks to me like the music industry and in particular the RIAA have become yesterday's technology.
Everyone listening to music (certainly NOT just college kids) pays what has become an exhorbiant price to prop up the bloated industry. Just how much of every dollar that is actually spent for music really ends up in the artists pocket, and just how much is pocketed by the middle men including the RIAA's anti piracy efforts?

[dandlion0099]

An interesting discussion (part 2)
As always, the base of the issue is mostly about greed. There are thousands and thousands of small time artists out there that produce independent work and make it available to the public without near the losses claimed by the RIAA. Reasonably priced and personal instead of a slicked up (and often misrepresented) package may be (I for one hope)the wave of the future.
I would say that the "lesson in Copyright law" is more that the common consumer is tired of being held up to support the dead-weight involved with the industry, tired of being held up to support the excessiveness of the lifestyles of those involved with the traditional industry.
Rightly or wrongly, I do sense a flavor of "You guy's have been ripping me off for all these years, now it is my turn!" from the general consumer. The technology that is now available does allow downloading and that does cost the real producer of the music: the artist. Do you (as an artist) really want to bring this loss to an end?
1. Quit supporting all the bloat in the industry by producing independently

[dandlion0099]

An interesting discussion (part 3)
2. Generate a quality product that creates loyalty from your consumer rather than the usually present "paid way too much for that" feeling we all have with most entertainment purchases.
3. Forget about the current RIAA settlement policy. What you are really doing here is telling the whole world that "yes, you can be ripped off", and considering the threatening and maliciously punitive nature of the policy, "maybe just maybe, you deserve it"

[dandlion0099]

An interesting discussion (part 3)
2. Generate a quality product that creates loyalty from your consumer rather than the usually present "paid way too much for that" feeling we all have with most entertainment purchases.
3. Forget about the current RIAA settlement policy. What you are really doing here is telling the whole world that "yes, you can be ripped off", and considering the threatening and maliciously punitive nature of the policy, "maybe just maybe, you deserve it"

[dandlion0099]

An interesting discussion (part 4 - last)
Opinions have stated that lowering the price to a fourth of the current cost might be effective, but I doubt it. I would probably pay twice the current price for this sort of entertainment, if the difference actually was used for something good instead of an "Nth" Hummer or some other "flaunt the wealth" toy. Those artists that really are about the music instead of the wealth generate an audience that buys their music to encourage that artist to make more of the same.
Digital Rights management is at best an attempt to close the barn door after the horses have went over the hill. I for one cannot see any means of copy protection that will not eventually be defeated, and if you accept that as true, stop and realize that by furthering this battle, you are most of all encouraging the consumer to accept the defeat of it. DRM is another piece of the bloat that makes entertainment more expensive than it should be. Every fraction of a cent spent on copy protection, is money taken from the consumer and given to a middle man instead of the real producer, the artist.
(Aside to Monitor, please delete one of the duplicate part three's and it would have been nice to know that comments were limited to 1500 characters ahead of time)