Professors find RIAA Lawsuits ineffective with further research



I just posted the article Professors find RIAA Lawsuits ineffective with further research.

 After all the RIAA's effort on filing lawsuits currently totalling over 3,000  and the approval of the  Pirate Act, there is more and more research aiming to prove that file  sharing...
Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.


ROFL… How long do they think this will work. Someone will crack it wide open. Solution… HAH!
[edited by Lacrymator on 27.06.2004 19:12]


The /month solution by the Harvard experts sounds like a very valid solution. I’d pay it. But… I don’t feel confortable with Janus and all that other control. Sounds like their trying to offer me something I already suffer from: Restricted Rights!
[edited by p_motch on 27.06.2004 19:17]


It’s cheaper to buy cd’s. Pay for music limited to pc’s and no burning … not me. (f*ck riaa) :r


Music is everywhere for free anyway, 24/7. All we really are bargaining for is the power to hear what we want when we want to. Look at the turmoil. Is it ok if I sing the song or is that illegal too? When I look at Michelangelo’s David, do I owe him a quarter? What has happened to art? What has happend to us? :c


All research papers, news, and reports are always biased. It’s difficult to make a comment that’s not affected by some factors.


I imagine in this case, the Harvard professors are aware of the credibility that proceeds them. Frankly, if I want the most unbiased review of any material like this, I would want to hear it from them. I’ve read countless Harvard Business Cases, and I’ve yet to sense any bias, attitude, or any other artifact that would lend to such measurable unfairness.


The statistics game is a played to *try and correlate one even with another. RIAA says since music downloaders are getting their fix from elsewhere, then the RIAA is losing customers. I would trust professor’s views over any RIAA representative’s view simply if the professors had no connections with the RIAA. In statistics, certain word games can easily misrepresent the true numbers for their benefit. I have seen this pseudoscience done much more as the years passed by. It is the practice to get results, does not matter if results are true, in the shortest least costly manner. That way when the results fail to work in real life, the people that came up with the results are still working on new results. It is the art of job preservation. I would imagine the people that bend statistics to suit the demand somehow do convince the RIAA that music downloading is the reason for decreased sales, but also do not explain the full picture to secure their positions in any manner they see fit. Sometimes I think that people like to play mind games to coerce the general populous into accepting the silent integration of remote and background controlled software. We need to have a way of locking our files so that we don’t abuse or even have the posibility of abusing the RIAA’s policies. Thus, we will gladly allow the extra headaches that come in the future of lost technological ingenuity? As technology gets more complicated, it seems that the bigger corporations would rather implement meaningless burdens on the end consumer. Ofcourse, keep this information a secret, we don’t want the people putting protection schemes into technology to lose their jobs or anything like that. Is that not so typical, how we love to use the word “protect” to signify a new definition of the very word itself. It is not to protect us, but in a way protect them, the few, very rich, from suing us for mishandling their copyrighted material. When I “pass away” (DIE), I hope what I think will be copyrighted, so that if anyone thinks like me, they will be sued by my undying robots that scan people’s brain patterns. :B