The RIAA, in an apparent attempt to reclaim its "most hated industry" title from the MPAA, has issued another 761 subpoenas directed at p2p file sharers. The latest attack is targeting students at twelve American universities. Tech Law Advisor mentions that, according to p2pnet.net, the suits are actually being used as a marketing ploy to force universities into promoting industry-backed p2p networks. According to RIAA president Cary Sherman:
The lawsuits are an educational tool ... They remind music fans about the law and provide incentives to university administrators to offer legal alternatives.
Right...keep in mind that Cary Sherman also co-chairs a Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities. I'm sure the committee has university students' interests in mind. Basically, with the threat of more suits the RIAA is trying to impel universities into purchasing university-wide "legal" p2p networks (like this from an earlier post on this site).
I have to admit, this is a good approach by the RIAA. Instead of targeting individual users, they are attempting to net the bigger prize of thousands of university students. And, in reality, the universities are going to buckle to the threat of lawsuits involving potentially hundreds of their own students.
As a side note, I did some research on Cary Sherman and found that he was interviewed by the contributors and readers of blogcritics.org back in 2002. Overall, the interview is pretty uneventful -- Sherman being asked the typical questions and giving even more typical responses -- but there was an anwer he gave that did catch my attention. In response to someone questioning whether p2p filesharing is responsible for slumping CD sales, Sherman said:
I wish you were right that CD sales haven't been impacted by filesharing. (I hate that term, by the way. To me, "sharing" means we each get a little less. If I share my pie, I only get to eat half. If I share my car, I can't use it when the other person has it. "Filesharing" however means we each get the whole thing, and noboby gives up anything! That's not sharing, it's publishing!)
In that statement, Sherman exactly describes the difference between sharing something tangible, like a car, and sharing an mp3 file. The rivalrous vs. nonrivalrous distinction. He makes an interesting point; that because of this distinction it should not be called "sharing." That's a pretty lawyerly way to look at it, but if you are convinced that "publishing" is the proper label, then shouldn't rights of exclusion be presumed? Hmmm...I'm not entirely convinced yet, but I'll have to give it some more thought. Unfortunately, with finals coming up I'll have to subordinate that thought for awhile.
Comments