Internet2 users being targeted by RIAA and MPAA

Every technology has its advantages and disadvantages. New advancements mean better ways of connecting to the Internet are being developed. And Internet2 is one of those networks. Around 207 Universities in the United States are connected through this ultra modern network. Speeds are sufficient to download an entire movie file from the net in 30 seconds flat. Same files download on a normal hi-speed connection can take as many as 6 hours.

However, the RIAA and MPAA have a problem with that. They are suing hundreds of students claiming that they are using this network for downloading and sharing unauthorized data on the internet. The Recording Industry Association of America alone has sued around 405 students for this offence. Motion Picture Association of America on the other hand has not released the number from their side. Their claim is that the students have been sharing data worth around 99 terabytes in one single day, which is good enough to store enough number of movies to start a digital music library.

RIAA president Cary Sherman said in a statement to the press: “Internet2 is increasingly becoming the network of choice for students looking to steal songs and other copyrighted works on a massive scale”. The network was originally developed to offer services in fields like medicine and weather forecasting, which require high quantity of data transfer from one place to another.

Popularity: 1%



Related Posts

Internet2 becoming a nuisance for Online Copyright Protection

RIAA sues more for music piracy

Dell in collaboration with Napster over services to Universities

RIAA might not pursue the cases against Internet2 offenders

MPAA targeting Bittorrent now

Your Ad Here

10 Comments to “Internet2 users being targeted by RIAA and MPAA”

  1. Jacques | April 14th, 2005 at 12:47 am

    If illegitimate business is allowed to flourish, the whole ecenomic system will collapse.

  2. Bob | April 14th, 2005 at 12:50 am

    The perpetually greedy movie industry. Instead of going after people they need to figure out a way to work with them.

  3. RBD | April 14th, 2005 at 12:52 am

    If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem. Suing someone has already proved to not be a real worthwhile or meaningfull deterrant due to probably the moderate/high turn around in some of these colleges. If 30 billion dollars a year aint enough to get by on then maybe you need to rethink your marketing and spending strategies and leave our childrens college funds alone.

  4. who? | April 14th, 2005 at 12:53 am

    art is meant to be shared. ri/mp/aa seems to not wish to share. this stuff is therefore not art. they are, therefore not protecting artists.

  5. Nic Stage | April 14th, 2005 at 12:57 am

    The collapse of one econoic system doesn’t necessarily mean that a new economic system will not form (unfortunately, imho). These media companies aren’t concerned at all about the economic system; they are concerned about their business.

  6. Andrew | April 14th, 2005 at 12:58 am

    I am against illegal file sharing but RIAA, MPAA and similar organizations shouldn’t be allowed to hinder technological advancements. The world needs technology…not films and music!!

  7. Deej | April 14th, 2005 at 1:07 am

    When a buisness model exists to use file swapping networks as a revenue source, then I have less of a problem with file sharing if it forces our hand. Wait what buisness model you ask? Well just because the RIAA is to antiquated to see it, does not mean it doesn’t exist. If every ISP collected just 5 dollars from every internet broadband user, and associated this money as an allowance toward P2P downloading, then the RIAA could use P2P as a ranking system for distribution of that revenue to the artist. At least then they could recover the loss of money (which is completely subjective and has been recently proven to be less substantial then they make it out to be)through a constant revenue stream. Who wouldn’t pay an extra five bucks for a license to continue downloading? Do the math and prove to me a better way to solve this delema. I for one buy the CD for more then the music, and don’t buy crap just because of one overly popped song.

    Done venting for now…

    P.S. If I can think of this (and I AM an idiot) why can’t an entire corporation full of “smart” people? You might want to ask that question yourself.

  8. Black Flag | April 14th, 2005 at 1:42 am

    Last album I bought was before that Celine Dion copy protection story. And the prices they sell an album for… I remember paying the price of two beers for an album. This was loong ago, when music was comming on tapes. And as the price increased the double tape recorder made its entrance on the market. And not that long ago the records guys sued Diamond for the mp3 player.

  9. thekidsintheway | December 18th, 2005 at 9:10 am

    Everything you people are saying goes both ways. First, “art is meant to be shared. ri/mp/aa seems to not wish to share. this stuff is therefore not art. they are, therefore not protecting artists.” apparently you have never created a work of art before. It takes lots and lots of time, and if I’m not mistaken, time is money. Second, the RIAA and MPAA are not losing a substantial amount of money to this cause, but is 20 dollars to go buy a movie really all that much; or how about 10-15 for a C.D. If you kids just go out and get a part time job you’ll have that in half a day’s work. Oh wait, you’re 30 and work for some huge corporation, then you better have the money to spare out of your 40-80 thousand dollar a year sallary. Lastly, movies and music are a form of art, myself being a musician couldn’t agree with that more; however, they are also a form of entertainment. Entertainment isn’t supposed to be free. It is a priveledge that you must work hard to achieve. That’s all the ranting I have for now.

    Chris.

  10. nikolaos | May 20th, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    Chris (the artist),

    It is obvious from your words that you still live mentally in medieval ages because of the way you perceive art: as a privilege, very much like works of art were perceived in the past. You are a plutocrat.
    Therefore I understand it is hard for you to accept that the internet stands for sharing. You obviously want to exploit it for your own personal well being.

    Great artists do not mind at all the sharing, on the contrary. Since you are not a great artist, you DO mind it because your *art* is really your source of income (work) and not true art. If you were a true artist you wouldn’t care one bit about your well being, because you would understand that you are the medium of something bigger than you. Have some Humility.

    Tada

Leave a Comment