Now
Fair
61.0°
High
87°
Low
64°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

36 UNL students to receive option of 'pre-settlement' with RIAA

Comments 39 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY MELISSA LEE / Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 - 12:58:16 pm CST

Three dozen University of Nebraska-Lincoln students are about to receive some very unhappy news in the mail.

The Recording Industry Association of America on Wednesday announced its latest crackdown on illegal file-sharing, an initiative that shows the bigwigs are getting serious now.

The RIAA said it’s mailed out 400 letters to students at 13 universities notifying them they’ll have 20 days to “pre-settle” or risk a costly public lawsuit.

Story Photo

Of the unlucky, 36 are UNL students.

They’ll be smart to opt for the pre-settlement option rolled out Wednesday, which the RIAA says will save each student perhaps thousands of dollars in legal fees and an embarrassing blemish on their public record.

Offending students who fail to contact the RIAA are sure to be slapped with lawsuits, which can result in settlements of $4,000 or more.

The new initiative is part of an RIAA effort to curb illegal downloading on college campuses, where nationwide, students amass music and movie files by the thousand.

So far, students haven’t seemed to respond to RIAA threats of legal action. Officials hope things are about to change.

“The problem has remained acute,” said Steven Marks, executive vice president and general counsel for the RIAA.

“We look forward to the day when these lawsuits are not necessary.”

Marks would not say how much money pre-settlement would save students, only that it will be “a substantial amount.”

He also said the RIAA has plans to soon expand its crackdown beyond college campuses.

UNL spokeswoman Kelly Bartling said the university is working to identify the 36 students who will receive notices. She said UNL is prepared to cooperate with RIAA in its effort to stop file-sharing.

“It’s just the right thing to do.”

Last week, the RIAA announced it is boosting the number of complaints it sends to universities warning them of illegal downloading. With 1,002 complaints this academic year, UNL had the third-most in the nation.

Its 36 pending notices are also the nation’s third most. Ohio University tops the ranks with 50 notices.

Reach Melissa Lee at 473-2682 or mlee@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Chris wrote on February 28, 2007 12:17 pm:
" While it would be nice if the bigwigs at Record companies kept less of the profit for music and gave more to the artists, they are in the right to take action against illegal file sharing. In the age of endless digital sampling and genres of music that essentially engage in outright thievery of other artist's music this is necessary. Making music (for the professional musician) is a difficult endeavor and it is often thankless in terms of the financial compensation. Artists should get their due. And sadly it has come to prosecuting those who should have endorsed the artist by purchasing their work lawfully. "
Steve U wrote on February 28, 2007 12:18 pm:
" Here's a thought - listen to and support musicians who aren't signed to a major label, and that encourage the free trade of their live shows. The music is better, and you're free from this kind of nonsense. The RIAA is desperately trying to cling to an outdated business model. Sueing the people they want to support them seems kind of like a strange way to build a customer base. "
Gerard Harbison wrote on February 28, 2007 12:53 pm:
" Get a lawyer and fight it. A court recently awarded full attorney fees to a woman unjustly pursued by the RIAA. If more people stood up to these grifters, they'd be less inclined to shake down the poor and vulnerable. "
Nate wrote on February 28, 2007 1:02 pm:
" Sounds like strong arm extortion, to me. Given the RIAA's lack of success in court lately, it's not surprising they prefer people to pay the fine rather than challenging the RIAA's claims. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ and http://www.eff.org/share/ are good sites to check out... "
Ville Vallo wrote on February 28, 2007 1:23 pm:
" What a joke. The so called "pre-settlement" saves the RIAA time, money, court costs and attorney fees. If everyone targeted by the RIAA stood up for themselves and make the RIAA sue each case, I suspect we would see less of their bullying tactics. Remember, the RIAA still has the burden of proving their case by clear and convincing evidence. I wouldn't give in so easily. "
Smoove B wrote on February 28, 2007 1:23 pm:
" At least Nebraska is in the Top 5 in something! (Am I the first to make that joke?) Badda-bing. "
i am not a lawyer wrote on February 28, 2007 1:23 pm:
" I sure hope they fight it, rather than settle. The RIAA pigopolists have been losing cases that defendants choose to litigate left and right. It is almost impossible to prove with any certainty who is doing the actual downloading/sharing. "The day these lawsuits are not necessary" is now. Multiple studies have shown that filesharing actually increases music sales. The pigopolists say they're fighting for the artists sake, but artists get cheated by record companies all the time. Don't give in to pigopolist threats! "
Extortion wrote on February 28, 2007 1:36 pm:
" Can anyone say extortion? The RIAA is essentially commiting extortion to go after downloaders. Very nice. This is why I don't belong to the RIAA, (yes I could join) and this is only one of the reasons why I don't buy any RIAA sanctioned music either. They're nothing but a bunch of legal crooks picking the pockets of artists and consumers. I understand that illegal downloading is a problem. But two wrongs don't make a right. "
Posse Comitatus wrote on February 28, 2007 1:45 pm:
" Why is UNL, an arm of the state, participating in a civil enforcement action on behalf of a multi-billion dollar industry? State employees should not be using taxpayer money to help prosecute students whose only offense is ripping off the profits of California fat-cat "recording artists." "
Here's the deal wrote on February 28, 2007 1:55 pm:
" Here's the deal...downloading music from the internet without obtaining the proper licenses is Illegal. Plain and simple. There is nothing to fight and these kids better pay the settlement if they now what is good for them. Giving people a link to a blog about what one person posted does not reflect general and accurate statements. It means isolated and inaccurate. The internet is not that hard to understand nor is the downloading of music. It is not your right to steal music just because it's now easier than ever to do so. It has always been illegal to copy a VHS from blockbuster so why do people think it's ok to copy from the Internet. Again I ask, why does everyone think they should get something for free off of the Internet? I don't see any of you making a music CD and giving away free copies! Just let it go...if you are going to copy and download music then be prepared to deal with this mess. All the wimpering does no good. "
Oh..and by the way wrote on February 28, 2007 2:01 pm:
" By the way...I am sure the UNL IT department is not wasting tax payer's dollars on helping locate the responsible individuals. They have thier own policies to enforce and will not tolerate anything that violates rules and regs on their network. Also, it is not that hard to find out who is downloading music. Your personal computers can easily be monitored for internet activity and at a minimum, the ISP along with UNL IT can determine what building, floor, connection into the room and then it's just a matter of locating the computer. Keep complaining though..I am sure that will get the artists and record companies to hand out music for free. "
How about this wrote on February 28, 2007 2:23 pm:
" You want to download music from the internet. Go to walmart, pay 88 cents per song. See how that works? You get to download music at a low price and per song basis so you're not stuck with the entire cd and you won't get sued. "
TeeCee wrote on February 28, 2007 2:37 pm:
" Are they going to go after people who record songs off of the radio next? Heck, there's been the ability to do that for YEARS and YEARS. I remember doing it as a kid on my radio/cassette boom box. We were always told, if it was for private use and not public or not for sale then it wasn't "bad". In reality you aren't taking that much money away from the artists. They don't get a big share of what a CD sells for anyway. You're taking it away from the producers and such. I think the artists should be mad at them. "
Sylvia wrote on February 28, 2007 3:43 pm:
" As long as you just record everything to audio tapes, the RIAA doesn't care. If you start using new technology how it was intended to be used, and they don't update their venues of sale, that's where they get you. You see, they don't have to update to suit the consumers, they just entrap and sue consumers. Get with the times RIAA! If you find yourself at the end of one of their suits, look up http://www.eff.org, they can help you. "
Steffonic wrote on February 28, 2007 4:20 pm:
" quote "I don't see any of you making a music CD and giving away free copies! " Actually, yes, I and many many other artists do it all the time. What's more, I record many of these artists for next to nothing. And believe me, it's no small investment on my part. Yes, downloading music from share sites is illegal. So is extortion, even under the guise of an out of court settlement. The RIAA is on it's way out and there is nothing that they can do about it. The era of the professional home studio will drive the final nail into the RIAA's coffin. and the sooner the better. "
Matt Poulsen wrote on February 28, 2007 4:29 pm:
" Yeah, the RIAA is not looking out for these students!! The RIAA are offering them a deal, so that they can save money in court cost, attorneys fees, and etc, and, at the same time, make an example out of the students. I would like to remind the RIAA and the students that the students do have a right to DUE PROCESS!!! These students, by default, are assumed to have done nothing wrong through the eyes of the court. Although I believe the music industry does have the right to protect their intellectual property I also believe the students have the right to be assumed innocent. I think in actuality the RIAA would have a difficult time actually showing that the said students were the ones doing the downloading. Yes, they can trace the electronic trail rather easily, but in a college dormitory the path from the keyboard and mouse to the student's hand is a bit more muddied. If they were my kids I would probably tell them to settle in order to avoid a big drain of money and time. However, I would love to watch someone take the RIAA on and tell them to take their gestapo tactics and cram it. "
Matt wrote on February 28, 2007 4:50 pm:
" Bands make almost all of their money on tour, which is one of the main reasons successful bands tour a lot. Downloading music is illegal anyway you slice it. Basically you are screwing the studios and producers and not the actual band. "
Craig wrote on February 28, 2007 5:22 pm:
" I hope all of the students fight the RIAA, stand up and don't let them be bullies. I'm an artist and musician with several cd releases and can tell you that most independent artists don't mind having people share the music in some form, and it's the corporate greed of the record companies that fuels these lawsuits. They should concentrate on foreign countries that are the major pirates. China, Thailand, North Korea infringe upon copyright with no checks and balances. The RIAA should stop making fans criminals. Here is a great LEGAL place to download mp3's that is band approved. There's a great Cracker show from Knickerbockers there, one of my favorites. http://www.archive.org/browse.php?field=/metadata/bandWithMP3s&collection=etree Aloha! "
Oh boy oh boy! wrote on February 28, 2007 6:17 pm:
" I hope I am one of the students! Hey RIAA? Bring it on!!! You think I'm dumb enough to settle with you? "
JimDandy wrote on February 28, 2007 8:43 pm:
" Kudos to the RIAA. Hope they nail these spoiled brats to the wall. Just because something is easy to steal doesn't make it right. "
Students are not very bright if... wrote on February 28, 2007 9:01 pm:
" ... they haven't figured out how to have one person legitimately download the stuff and then share the files several ways - and not through some file sharing network. The others merely divvy up a proportionate amount of reimbursement based on the amount of files they received. Illegal? Yes. Will they get caught for doing this? Let's just say it would be hard for the RIAA to prove anything. Personally, I think this modern music isn't worth squat anyway. Most definitely not worth the exorbitant price they ask fora CD. However, I do have a strong dislike for the big recording companies. "
Lee wrote on February 28, 2007 9:13 pm:
" I think theses big record companies ought to get a life and not brother the little people! "
Husker Neocon wrote on February 28, 2007 10:29 pm:
" This is proof once again that the record industry is gasping its last breaths. Instead of embracing the new technology (MP3s and digital file sharing), they have fought it all the way. If the record companies had sold single song MP3s for 25 cents, with no copy protection, they would be selling more songs than they could handle. Instead, they put unworkable copy protection on music, and want us to continue to pay $15 for a CD. Apple has had to fight the RIAA companies in their desire to charge more than the .99 that Itunes charges. Greed drives the record companies. Profits of severad hundred percent on each CD is ridiculous, expecially since the artists dont get the money. If the RIAA companies would offer songs at a reasonable price with no copy protection, this wouldnt be happening. "
Concerned UNL student wrote on March 1, 2007 12:00 am:
" Well, as my name indicates, I'm concerned. Thirty-six of us are going to receive notices, eh? "
D wrote on March 1, 2007 3:36 am:
" Let's all cling to yesteryear. The old business model is an antique and facing the prospect of being unprofitable because what they offer is is no longer exclusive. Technology made the buggy whip obsolete and it has done the same to the old music industry distribution system. They can fight change if they waqnt but they cannot change the new reality. Legal or illegal downloading is only a temporary issue. "
ET wrote on March 1, 2007 7:42 am:
" Well, good for you, JimDandy. In your world, Extortion is okay as long as it's against someone who did something bad, huh? I didn't realize that two wrongs were now making a right! Good to know that now. Next time someone scratches my car, I'll let them know that they can either, a). Pay me $4000 directly that I didn't earn, or b). Go to court and be sued over it. "
AND THE RICH KEEP GETTING RICHER... wrote on March 1, 2007 9:32 am:
" We can't find who exactly leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. We can't find those WMDs that took us to war in Iraq. We can't find Osama bin Laden -- the one most responsible for undertaking the war on terror. But out of the millions and millions of people participating in online music activities, we can find those few who are "illegally" downloading/swapping/sharing music files?!? It's a good thing we have our priorities straight in this country! "
Actually ET wrote on March 1, 2007 10:47 am:
" Actually ET, the next time someone scratches your car, you'll be in the store while they're driving away leaving you with the cost of repair. Why do them any favors as they are doing you none. I know, how about you just get arrested for stealing then. Ya, that's it, have the LPD worry about it..online theft. I think the fine the kids having to pay is just fine, if they pay it. The problem would be real simple to solve...stop stealing music. It is stealing until the artists decide to give it away for free. There is nothing to argue or complain about. Don't steal the music. Oh and by the way, it's not that hard to find music thieves, but it is hard to find Osama. Just make sure you give Osama a computer and a link to a share site, we'll get em then!! "
Greg wrote on March 1, 2007 11:03 am:
" Yesterday, many people agreed that it was right for a kid to get arrested for 1.98 in donuts, but its fine to download music illegally? About fifteen years ago cds were expensive and concerts were cheap, now to to illegal downloading, you can't see a band for less than fifty bucks. And people wonder why it costs over a hundred dollars to get nose bleed seats for an established band. I say arrest them and make do time like every other thief! "
Gregg wrote on March 1, 2007 11:12 am:
" nice to see UNL isn't protecting the people who pay to keep the University running (through tuition) and instead served up the IP's of students to the RIAA. Maybe if the recording industry didn't absolutely rape people who legally purchase music, fewer people would 'steal' the music. I can buy new hit movies cheaper than 2 year old CD's...and I guarantee the movie producers spent a whole lot more to make the movie than a couple weeks in the recording studio. "
Peggy Sue wrote on March 1, 2007 11:18 am:
" Squeal little piggy thieves...squeal! Just because a company is a piggy too doesn't give you the right to steal from them. Waaaaa!!! Does anybody believe people should take responsibility for what they do anymore? Little piggy, feel the weight of the big piggy. "
JimDandy wrote on March 1, 2007 12:01 pm:
" Extortion? Where does extortion come into play? The RIAA is offering people a deal. If you’re innocent then by all means refuse the deal and have your day of vindication in court. Or if you did steal their merchandise – but an amount less than the settlement offer – again you can have your day in court and get a lower settlement. All these pathetic rationalizations about the horrible RIAA industry model (irrelevant), the excess amount of money artists make (irrelevant), time better spent hunting down Valerie Plame’s leaker (irrelevant), how it’s ok to make tape copies (irrelevant), artists who are OK with free file sharing (irrelevant), how UNL computer services dollars could be better spent (irrelevant) are, well, absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand (theft). (Even though I personally agree with many of the positions stated). You can't just steal things because it's easy and you've conjured up sad rationalizations in your own minds to justify it. "
I love free music wrote on March 1, 2007 12:45 pm:
" Let all music be free. there are soooo many people just take take taking it. Why not...........i love it "
CS wrote on March 1, 2007 2:21 pm:
" The cost of concerts has nothing to do with file sharing. Threatening to sue unless paid protection money is a pretty good racket for the east and west coast, i'm just surprised to see it here. The recording industry is saying that, based on a number that almost anyone can fake and doesn't even point to a direct person, just a computer (IP number) thus not proving guilt-they can just graciously 'offer' a settlement. Its self incrimination if you take the settlement, and one of the things that you are protected by in the Constitution. The files are also not 'stolen' because the artist can still do whatever they want with their music. There are some people in here that need to read up on the realities of the situation before they comment. "
To CS wrote on March 1, 2007 3:10 pm:
" Well just for the simple fact that you state "IP number" and not IP Address tells me that you don't know what you're talking about and therefore I think you should read up on the realities. I do agree that the files are not stolen but they are obtained illegally. The aquiring of a music file without the appropriate license is Illegal. We understand that the artist can do whatevey they want with their music, but we can't. In other words, I cannot copy their music and give it away, even on the internet. Just because it's done on the internet, does not mean illegal copying should be allowed. Go rent a DVD from blockbuster, copy it and give to all of your friends and/or put it on the internet. You know you should not do that. Why is music any different? People should stop being naive about this by reading blogs and websites and taking every word for scripture. If you're IP Address theory really held true, more often than not, people who are involved in child pornagraphy would never have their computers taken as evidence nor would they be pursued in the first place. It is a valid way of collecting evidence and locating the individuals responsible. "
Proud to be an Alumna of the #3-ranked Music Sharers! wrote on March 1, 2007 4:02 pm:
" Sharing music isn't theft (the original owner is not deprived of his/her property), nor piracy (where one seizes something that belongs to someone else and sells it for a profit - no money is changing hands in file sharing situations). If someone finds music he/she likes, he/she will allocate the funds to purchase the entire CD (as I regularly do), so it's fallacious to say that sharing music for download hurts the industry. It's also wrong to confuse correlation with causation: what other entertainment options have been competing with CDs since the decline was first noted? Have you forgotten about DVDs, video games, advanced mobile technologies, and computers? Not to mention that the quality of music produced these days by RIAA-affiliated artists is such that perhaps one song per CD is worth listening to. I will leave you with one last thought: Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Folks, considered copyright laws to be protective of monopolies, which he despised. I have no problem with the intellectual property aspects of copyright law, but find contemptible the greed aspects. "
Movies are no different wrote on March 1, 2007 4:18 pm:
" Movies are burned and shared just like music.....anyone with a burner will tell you that! "
CS wrote on March 1, 2007 5:07 pm:
" To ToCS-Confiscation of computer equipment when child pornography is not the same thing-its a criminal case, requiring a much higher standard of evidence than an IP address.(pardon me for using 'incorrect terminology' for the non technical readers) Its been repeatedly demonstrated in court that while an IP address marks a computers location it does not mark a person's location, therefore the RIAA must resort to civil litigation because its the best they can come up with-they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul Smith did it, so they resort to 'John Doe' instead. Cases in three states have been successfully dropped, and one defendant is counter suing for legal fees. "
Dave wrote on March 2, 2007 9:20 am:
" There is an intrinsic difference between those who 'share' material they have bought, and those who _sell_ copies of same. In the second instance the receiver was prepared to pay money for the item (even if less than the vendor wants) That's a crime. The buyer has committed a petty misdemenor, the seller a criminal act. In the first instance there is little or no evidence that the recipient would have listened to, read or watched the material if they had to pay for it. As the vendor is no poorer and no worse off (no physical goods have been removed, and no replacement costs incurred)and may well have gained a future paying audience at least for concerts, it is a little hard to see -- besides greed, the point of the excercise. Copying something you would be prepared to pay for is morally wrong. Surprisingly enough most people don't need to be told this, and do it all by themselves. They WANT to support artists they like. Only those with the ethics of thieves (the thought 'recording industry executives' never crossed my fingers) would assume otherwise. If a friend/filesharer lets you try something new for free -- it's something any record company without an overdose of dumb would do anyway - on radio for example. The ethical line is to buy the next one. Only someone who is intrinsically dishonest would assume than 90% of people would do otherwise. Of course making it very cheap and easy to download songs legally would be more effective than regulation is -- but large corporates are not really used to having to work that way. I suggest organising a boycott of RIAA products. "

Ads by Yahoo!