The RIAA may have found another questionably legal way to suck money out of college students: directly from the institutions themselves.
As a part of a bill making its way through Congress called the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, or COAA, universities would essentially be required to foot the bill for subscription music services for their students. Failure to adhere to this program and other alternatives and “technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity” would lead to the loss of federal financial aid for all students at the universities – even those who don’t even own a computer with which to commit such illegal activities.
The bill, sponsored by George Miller (D-CA) and Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), was met, not surprisingly, with praise from the RIAA and MPAA, citing increased cooperation to catch illegal use.
Universities, on the other hand, see this measure as another lack of trust in universities to police their own networks and seek a more “workable solution to the problem.” The fear is that adherence with such a program could over-zealously limit legitimate content. If they don’t adhere, those most in need – lower-income students – would be deprived of their ability to get an education, punishment for a crime they did not necessarily commit.
This bill effectively amounts to making the Secretary of Education, currently the point person on university file-sharing issues, into a personal agent for the RIAA.
Such unabashed compliance with the requests of lobbyists is an insult to the American democratic system, placing the priorities of a certain “generous” interest group above those of the people, the constituents, is just a sad display.
It is safe to say that universities and colleges across the nation would be in no position to refuse to comply with such a bill, given the $100 billion in federal aid at stake.
It is a no-brainer for a college choosing between completely taking the financial legs out from under its students and giving up some control over their networks and cash.
The real question, though, is why should they need to make this decision? How high of a concern is P2P sharing to the most powerful government in the world that it threatens to undermine domestic higher education?
The worst part is that the technique used by the RIAA is so blatant here. Why bother suing person after person for the $750 per song as Marc Fedoras ’09 was accused of when you can, by law, require every single college student in the country to pay you, via their institutions through music subscription services, every single year?
By simply paying off- ahem – donating to and lobbying some politicians, the RIAA can ensure a guaranteed revenue stream, year after year, instead of suffering through repeated trials they may not win and paying legal fees. With some 18 million college students in the nation, the windfall could be enormous for the RIAA in this “business investment.”
From a purely business perspective, it really is genius: Turning just thousands in donations into guaranteed millions in returns.
From a remotely ethical perspective, it is appalling. But isn’t that what one of the A’s in RIAA stands for anyway?
I can take some solace that this bill will probably see some changes before its eventual passage, but at the same time, I’m reminded why I, like many young people in this country, see little point in trying to vote when interest groups can trump with their influential vote of the dollar.
Leave a Reply