Oxford Yanks Student Page Over Spoof DeCSS

Re:Universities by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 17:36 · Score: 2

As it is, universities don't have all that much money
Oxford University doesn't have all that much money? Come-on. Look at those colleges. My college alone apparently has investments totalling 40 million pounds! When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data, especially if they're getting sued over it.
I'm at Oxford Uni, and I didn't sign any such thing. All my data produced 'during working hours' is owned by an external funding body that pays for my research.
Incidently my home-page also has a link to OpenDVD.org and the (non-spoof) DeCSS source code, but I guess the Oxford Uni Computing Services haven't found that! They're not particularly switched on I guess.

Re:Where are we? Where we always were! by Seth+Finkelstein · 2000-05-19 20:29 · Score: 2

Support them? I did not advocate that. Far from it. But I think it makes sense to understand the institutional incentives at work here. There was no Golden Age when every University employee, from the president down to the janitor, was happily willing to go to the wall at the drop of a hat.

For some perspective, take a look at the American Association of University Professors report, Developments Relating to Censure by the Association

Finally... a story where this is *not* offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 20:38 · Score: 5

and I'm asleep at the keyboard. Doh!

Oh well... here it is.
Add your own, and spread this far and wide:

This announcement brought to you by the DeCSS Polar Bear.

Re:Janet vs the World? Hardly. by divec · 2000-05-19 17:36 · Score: 3

9.2 seems incredibly sweeping. If I put up a research paper showing that racism is endemic in the police, that will cause annoyance and inconvenience [to the police]. If 9.2 is enforced properly, JANET should be sued for misrepresenting itself as a network suitable for sharing academic information. As for "needless anxiety", who is to say what "needless" is? This website has illustrated an important point so I would say it was arguable whether the anxiety was needless.

Hmmm, it pisses me off that Oxford has a women-only college. There must be many people like me who find that annoying. So their website is "likely to cause annoyance" and should be yanked under 9.2.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:As a former Oxford student... by MROD · 2000-05-19 17:38 · Score: 4

I'm sorry you feel that way about Oxford in general.

As a sysadmin at one of the science departments here at Oxford I can say that not all the people in the University should be tarred with the same brush.

Knowing the way the University works, it's probable that the decision to pull the page was probably made at the Proctor's office level and not at the OUCS (Computing Services) level.

I cannot talk for the people in the Computing Laboratories (CompSci department) but there ARE some really knowledgable and on-the-ball hackers (original meaning) running computers around the University.. and their average age is WELL below the 65 you state.

Myself, I would have tried to explain the technicalities to the powers that be.. however, in the end if this had happened within our department I would probably have had to bow to the pressure also.

I'm not saying that the student was right or wrong in putting the page up as he did, but every person who gets an account on any system within the University has to sign an agreement that includes the proviso to remove any service pending an investigation.

All this sort of stuff is new territory for everyone and there seems to be a great worry over setting the wrong president for the future.

Stephen Usher

(Note, I'm speaking for myself and not for the Department of Earth Sciences or the University of Oxford in any official manner. These are my opinions and mine alone.)

PS. What's wrong with Solaris or any other UNIX type OS for servers in a university? (Oh dear, I can hear those flame burners being lit as I type.. :-))

--

Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"

Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by Jon+Peterson · 2000-05-19 23:23 · Score: 2

"The point here is that Oxford did in effect take sides. "

Not the way I see it. I think Oxford took the path of least resistance, which given how trivial the matter is to Oxford's core concerns seems pretty reasonable.

If some CS grad student had written a paper for publication, and that paper discussed the technology involved in DeCSS or whatever, and then MPAA got involved, that's when Oxford should put up a fight, because allowing its students to freely publish academic papers and pursue academic research is Oxford's core business.

--
----- .sig: file not found

Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by Art+Tatum · 2000-05-19 23:39 · Score: 2

It's their network, they say what goes on and what comes off, end of story. If I come back from work one day to find someone has stuck a poster on my front door championing human rights in Burma, I'll take it off thanks very much, because whilst I agree with the cause it's my front door and I say what goes on it.

Actually, it's more like you come home from work one day and find that your landlord has removed *your* poster championing human rights in Burma because lawyers for the government of Burma don't like the message it portrays.

Furthermore, regardless of the free speech involved I don't want my windows smashed by some SLORC party apparatchik.Silly. This only happens if you're *in* Burma. In this case, the MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of *AMERICA* and the University is in the *UK*. Despite all the globalist garbage being spewed today, the UK is still a *SOVEREIGN* nation.

Furthermore, it is _NOT_ the job of Universities to defend some random student's pet cause.

That isn't what happened. Rather, the University caved into being mugged by a bunch of common criminals (AKA lawyers) hailing from an organization engaged in illegal activities in their own country (violating our Constitution) who have no proper jurisdiction over the place in question.

Re:Universities by Mr_Ceebs · 2000-05-19 21:03 · Score: 2

The way I would have looked at it if the same letter had arrived at my site would have been this. When the LKawyers letter arrived I would have straight away, before anything else happened, taken it down. I would then straight away inform the user that this had been done. At the moment following the Demon case this is what we have to do. After this when I could fit the job into my schedule I would get around to looking at the work. If in my opinion it does fall inside that category, then I would have to go to see a representative of the colleges managent committee, explain the legal situation, and see if they wish to let one of their students fight for academic freedom. but I cannot make the decision to place the college in the firing line against a group of large corperations. Looking at what is supposed to be on these pages, the colleges lawyers would then laugh at their lawyers, and we would probably send a bill for our time to whatever organisation had asked for the site to be shut down.
It has been said that it is part of my job to deal with Buraucracy and lawyers. My responsibility is to provide a service to more than just one student. If one student placed me in a position where I could loose my service for all the others then I would have to drop his service till I could be sure that the others would be unaffected

Re:Universities by fishbowl · 2000-05-19 23:41 · Score: 2

>universities don't have all that much money

This is Oxford we're talking about.
I believe they *do* have all that much money.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Look before you pull by grahammm · 2000-05-19 16:53 · Score: 3

Shouldn't the university have looked at the page (which would take no more than 30s) before spending much administration and legal time on the matter?

Universities by yonderboy · 2000-05-19 17:00 · Score: 3

As a person who studys at and works for a university, I can say that Oxford did the right thing. As it is, universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers. This also has nothing to do with censorship. The university owns the machines. The students don't pay for their access. When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data, especially if they're getting sued over it.

Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-21 01:33 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
If however I take the pages off and then look at them at some point in the future, when I have time ...
Meanwhile, of course, you've silenced a legitimate user, chilled the expression of other legitimate users (who might now be very circumspect in the criticisms, parodies, etc. that they levy), and handed management of your site over to external lawyers. Your own argument is that you have "one third the staff" -- how long will it take until it's "some point in the future"? A day? A week? A month? A year? Will your bosses really back you up when you say, "Oh, we actually should take on these lawyers over this page that we removed a year ago"? Or will they figure that the battle is already over?
Again, I can't speak for the UK. In the States, we are told over and over again that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Notification by an interested party does not constitute proof. I believe the only morally responsbile thing to do is to immedaitely archive the site in question and begin looking into it at (as you say) a reasonable time. But side with the student, because he is your constituent.
In fact, the most reasonable response is to fire a letter back demanding documentation for the alleged infringement. Have them have to assert, under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed the copright owners. But you do not have to roll over immediately. Make them get formal and involved. Otherwise you are surrendering your responsibility and you are failing your bosses and your students.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by gargle · 2000-05-20 01:05 · Score: 2

My former university (Cornell) has always stood up for its students right to free speech on the internet. e.g. Godfrey vs Cornell. This is important, because it goes to the heart of what a university is - an institution where freedom of expression is respected. And yes, Oxford does have all that money.
Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-19 21:44 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
If one student placed me in a position where I could loose my service for all the others then I would have to drop his service till I could be sure that the others would be unaffected
"In Germany, they first came for the XXX, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a XXX.... Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
Why can't people see that we are all in this together? It's not good enough to protect some users by sacrificing one. It's not good enough to allow "just a little" intimidation to keep your job, or keep your job easy. It's not enough to say, "Well, it will all be sorted out eventually, but it's not my fight."
It is your fight, and it is my fight, and it is the fight of all people everywhere who have not yet surrendered their humanity, who believe that human dignitiy trumps economic imperative, who value freedom and crave freedom and breathe freedom. Ligitgation through intidation, like legislation through litigation, eats away at the core values that make life worth living and the democracies worth defending.
It will not be the computer that will dehumanize us. It will the powers that use the computer to strip away our freedoms and our dignity ... and it will be the sheep who roll over rather than raise a fuss, who acquiesce in the smothering of others, just so long as it's quiet until their turn comes.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by Ed+Avis · 2000-05-20 01:44 · Score: 2

Something to try would be to send another threatening letter to Oxford, pretending to be the MPAA. Claim that their discussion of why they pulled DeCSS infringes copyright / trade secrets or some other bullshit, and demand they remove it. It would be interesting to see just how ridiculous the demands have to be before they'd start to question them.

You could take this further; start writing to universities, ISPs and small companies up and down the land, with letters written in threatening lawyerese demanding that they pull particular Web pages. There could even be a 'form letter' program that puts something together from a set of stock phrases, adds a convincing-looking letterhead, and prints it out to be signed and posted. 'DIY Internet Censorship Kit' or something.

All this would be fairly pointless, unless it managed to generate a public outcry over freedom of speech and censorship. (I'm thinking of the UK here, but there's no reason it shouldn't apply to other countries.)

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Universities by MillMan · 2000-05-19 21:47 · Score: 3

I hate to break it to you, but universities have always been this way. The institution was never radical, it was always the students. Whenever you see footage of protests from the 60's or today, they usually occured in direct opposition to the demands of the management (whatever they're called at your local U) of the school.

Universities are pretty passive when it comes to defending freedoms...it's a never ending tug of war, really. Thats why people need to stay active: institutions are never going to keep us on track. They'll cave in to corporate and government demands without students yelling and screaming. The university I just gradauted from did this kind of thing ALL the time. Corporations have been really increasing their presence on campus, from the corporation funded research lab to the coke contract for all soft drinks on campus (I want my mountain dew, god damn it).
Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-19 19:20 · Score: 5

Quoth the poster:
To my way of thinking anything that gets me involved with Lawyers and the college bureacracy more than necessary falls under that category
Which simply underscores that many people working at universities are, sadly, unaware of issues of academic or social freedom. He posted a "spoof" -- a parody, a "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). I suppose I can't comment on UK free speech laws, but in the US, parodies are protected.
If you don't think that the parody could serve a legitimate purpose as social commentary, consider the agitation it caused in this case.
This trouble isn't "unnecessary", unless you feel that the student's right to free speech is "unnecessary". I'm sorry, but the student's web site was legitimate and any trouble you'd have with the lawyers or the college bureaucracy would have been part of your job.
I wouldn't have been so surprised or even incensed if this had been a corporate site. We expect that kind of reasoning in the Corporate World. I had hoped a university -- especially one as venerable as Oxford -- would see matters more clearly. Sadly, the business of higher education is becoming business.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by mpe · 2000-05-19 22:00 · Score: 2

Whether it's illegal or not in your particular section of the earth doesn't seem to matter to the MPAA. :(

This will continue until someone has the good sense to tell them where to get off. If the Oxford admin people had any sense they would have sent the MPAA letter back with an altas and an invoice for their time.
Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-26 14:22 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
The university server is a private server, therefore they can shut down whatever page they want. U.S. first amendment rights are placed there to prevent government censorship ("Congress shall make no law...")
Fair enough, except (I believe) that Oxford is taxpayer-supported. That means that, were it a US university, it would have to respect First Amendment rights.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by dieman · 2000-05-19 17:08 · Score: 3

Two issues here:

A) a univ. just said "yeah, even though its not it, We dont care, free flow of information means shit to us! We just dont want your corp lawyer dogs coming at us!" What kind of implications does this have in the future for them kind of scares me.

B) the data was not illegal or anything

This is censorship via corp. strongarming. I think people who value their data in public access on these systems should *move* immedately to ensure that the freedom of their information is continued.

--
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Re:Universities by gad_zuki! · 2000-05-20 06:07 · Score: 2

What about the student's free speech rights? Should all legal matters fall into a 'is it cost effective' approach? Should threats of lawsuits replace any freedoms the law affords? If they're so damn poor they can get free representation, with a big name like Oxford it shouldn't be too hard.

And exactly what make you think such a case would cost millions of dollars to defend? I doubt they'd have to cancel the rugby program. Not to mention their ethical responsibility to provide intellectual space for the free exchange of ideas.

If you goto school so you can get ahead in the rat race, then yes this is the proper thing to do. You could *gasp* insult your corporate masters.
Re:Universities by Pyotri · 2000-05-19 19:54 · Score: 2

Point of fact:-

Oxford (and Cambridge) University are run on a collegiate system. Each college functions as an independent institution, although they share many teaching resources. A couple of examples from Cambridge:

New Hall College has been technically bankrupt for about ten years.

Trinity College is one of the richest institutions in the country. If I remember rightly, it is #3 landowner after the church and the crown.
Re:Universities by www.sorehands.com · 2000-05-20 08:32 · Score: 2

It might be because they have the fear of the MPAA!
This is the main reason that they (MPAA, RIAA, Mattel) fight litigate the way they do. If put the fear into ISPs(and the university is their ISP), and companies will not dare go after them or speak up against them.

--
Fight Spammers!
Re:Universities by divec · 2000-05-19 17:20 · Score: 2

universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers

As has been pointed out, that doesn't apply to ox.ac.uk. But anyway, if you're a level B domain and your users are allowed and expected to run web servers, there's no excuse for not knowing at least a basic amount of the legality of stuff, for example that DeCSS isn't even remotely illegal [in the UK] and so any attempt to litigate would get thrown out of court.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Where are we? Where we always were! by Seth+Finkelstein · 2000-05-19 17:44 · Score: 2

As a general rule, University employees advance in their careers by avoiding trouble. Tenured faculty may get to be firebrands. But for the average administrator, there are no rewards to being a no-holds-barred defender of academdic freedom.

Re:Where are we? Where we always were! by gilroy · 2000-05-19 19:23 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
But for the average administrator, there are no rewards to being a no-holds-barred defender of academdic freedom.
Except maybe the defense of your soul... just because administrators often cave doesn't mean we should support them when they do. There is a right response here, and Oxford didn't give it.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

This has nothing to do with free speech by Jon+Peterson · 2000-05-19 18:01 · Score: 2

Oxford acted perfectly reasonably.

It's their network, they say what goes on and what comes off, end of story. If I come back from work one day to find someone has stuck a poster on my front door championing human rights in Burma, I'll take it off thanks very much, because whilst I agree with the cause it's my front door and I say what goes on it. Furthermore, regardless of the free speech involved I don't want my windows smashed by some SLORC party apparatchik.

Furthermore, it is _NOT_ the job of Universities to defend some random student's pet cause. I, like the rest of UK taxpayers, pay Oxford and other universities to educate people, hopefully in a broad way, hopefully including such issues as will help them generally in later life. I'd say this student has learnt a pretty important lesson - if use use facilities kindly made available to you at no cost to make trivial provocative statements about something you feel is important, you will get nowhere.

Way to go Oxford, I say.

--
----- .sig: file not found

Re:A letter to Mr. Alan Gay by Gerv · 2000-05-19 23:51 · Score: 2

I doubt that our network Admin will be all that impressed with a letter which goes on about the Motion Picture Association of America...

Gerv

UK vs USA by roman_mir · 2000-05-19 21:34 · Score: 3

British are basically scared of litigation. Unlike the USA the rest of the world is not as used to court rooms. It seems that the USA is one large court room where the plaintiffs and defendents are constantly rotated. It also seems that all this is done for only two reasons: 1.To enrich the lawyers; 2.To enterntain the public.

However, this does not mean that the truth always wins in US courts. Remember O.J. Simpson? On the other hand the cases sometimes are simply ridiculous, remember Monica vs Clinton?

So, I would say, the rest of the capitalist world outside the USA is scared of the USA litigation system, and the non-capitalist countries either simply ignore the USA rules or suffer from it without even being given a chance to defend themselves.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by Jon+Peterson · 2000-05-19 18:15 · Score: 2

"But the British don't have a right to free speech"

This is true, and unfortunate, but then I'm pragmatic about this stuff. I can actually say more (of what I want to say) in the UK than I can in the U.S. UK newspapers and t.v. are actually freer to publish a wider range of opinions than in the US because they don't have pressure groups and commercial interests holding the advertising leash. Magazines in the UK have published articles that in the US would have seen the magazine lose all its advertisers, and probably have personal threats made to, if not carried out on, its senior staff.

As for the monarchy I'm damned if I can see what difference that makes to anything much, although I'm told it helps the tourist industry. Mind you if recent news about Baby Blair is anything to go by there are people who are just as idiotically interested in the inside of Number 10 as the Palace. Very strange.

--
----- .sig: file not found

Re:What a stupid thing to do by niagaracyber · 2000-05-19 18:44 · Score: 3

Sorry, but given the whole tense legal situation around the DeCSS fiasco at the moment, what was he thinking about doing this? Yeah sure it wasn't *real*, but anyone who thought about it for half a second would have realised that this would cause him trouble, real or not.

Right. Don't cause trouble. Don't make waves. The lawyers know best.

The major corporations are going to try to take a yard for every inch legislatures give them in the narrowing of civil liberties. The time to fight them is now, not when you're allowed only to post about what you did last summer and what brand of breakfast cereal you happen to like. [Sounds depressingly like an AOL chat room, doesn't it?]

Many university administrators are gutless wonders, although some were professors, and I would have hoped that someone at Oxford would have asked questions first and shot later.

Dave

Re:Universities are not the last stronghold ... by torpor · 2000-05-20 01:37 · Score: 2

... of intellectual freedom. Anyone who's been to one can tell you that they're a pitiful excuse for intellectual exercise, mired down in the rigors of status quo intelligentsia and bureaucratic wrangling of science.

The truth of the matter is, the *INTERNET* is the last stronghold of intellectual freedom. Or, more accurately, its the *FIRST* stronghold of intellectual freedom, and that's why its so fucking cool.

So it hardly suprises me that Oxford bent to the will of the MPAA. As it has always been doing, pandering to the whims of the uberclass, which, in america, is now represented by corporations - as opposed to england, where it was all land barons and drunk kings.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Re:DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by kaphka · 2000-05-20 01:40 · Score: 2

Now, I KNOW this isn't the US - BUT...

Every time DMCA issues come up on Slashdot, some wiseass points out that it only applies in the U.S. Technically, that's true. But the DMCA is just the U.S. version of the WIPO Treaty, which has been adopted by pretty much all of the "civilized" world. Unfortunately, I can't find a list of signatories, but it's a pretty safe bet that Britain is one. Any country that signs the treaty is obligated to adopt a law essentially identical to the DMCA.

Having said that, I don't see your particular point in the WIPO Treaty, so that provision might actually be an American twist. Even still, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was in the British version as well.

--

MSK

Idiots on /. by gmhowell · 2000-05-20 02:10 · Score: 2

Okay, my karma on /. sucks. Why? Because I read articles and links BEFORE moderating/meta-moderating. So this likely leads to some unpopular moderation. But clearly, if anyone had read the link, they would have seen that what the university did was BULLSHIT!! The page had a link to a program called DeCSS.

Now, for the unwashed morons who didn't read the page, guess what THIS DeCSS does? It's a perl script that strips Cascading Style Sheets from html! How is that illegal? Clearly, any moron (even one from the MPAA) could see this.

And now to the fucking lamer(s) who upmarked this post: get a clue. I used to be quite in favor of the moderation system on /. Clearly, it doesn't work. If you aren't interested enough in the story to read the links, don't moderate the discussion.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Information Nazi. by locust · 2000-05-19 21:51 · Score: 2

Because the request was to remove software that wasn't even there.

'Apparently the university computer services have talked to their lawyers and reckon it's against British copyright law (despite there being nothing on there except "DeCSS is a ludicrous thing to use to try to pirate DVDs, the code hasn't been here since January, try OpenDVD instead.").'

Adrian Baugh in http://cryptome.org/ox-chill.htm

But when I wrote it, I was talking in the general sense. I was trying to point out, that there was a false assumption that the MPAA sent people in different juresdictions the same letter.

--locust

Re:Universities == ISP (?) by rking · 2000-05-19 18:54 · Score: 2

There is currently NO right to Free Speech under UK Law

Correct, anything is lawful that isn't explicitly unlawful so unless actually forbidden by law you do have the right to speek freely but there are no limits in parliament's powers so no guarantee that they can't restrict speech anyway they please.

And a UK national isn't even a citizen - he's just a subject of the Royal family.

Nonsensical. You are correct that a British national is a subject of the crown (or of the queen if you like, certainly not of "the royal family") but that doesn't mean that he/she isn't also a "citizen", look the word up if you don't know what it means.

An EU directive, to all intents and purposes, introduces a Freedom of Speech rule into UK governance - HOWEVER, to get it to take effect, you'd have to bring your case all the way to the European Court, and, since there's no Free Speech rule in the UK, you'll never get that far...

What on earth is that supposed to mean? What do you think would happen to you first, and how would it be prevented by a free speech provision in British law? The British government can't (lawfully) prevent you from bringing such a case, and if they wish to act unlawfully then a free speech guarantee would be irrelevant anyway.

Re:Information Nazi. by locust · 2000-05-19 19:12 · Score: 2

That admin is an information nazi? Why?

To some poeple/institutions the potential costs of ignoring even an official looking document from an organization that has vastly more resources than they do are greater than any benefit of ignoring it. This is especially true where some extranational (non-us) law applies. Bottom line, most people can not afford to pay lawyers. Did you think that that the MPAA or anyone else would go after somebody who did?

A) it should expend any legal expense other than 3.5 seconds to ignore the request on the grounds that it is baseless.

How do you know the request is baseless under the local law?! Are you an expert in british IP law? I keep reading about what somebody should do or how they should react. But a lot of it is a) the same points made over and over again to a different headline or b) people saying "yeah, I would have really given them hell." without knowing the situation on the ground. More generally, a particular individual may be willing to fight, but the people that depend upon him or her, would not be able to live (use the term loosely) through that fight.

Don't get me wrong I agree, that the guy may want to move DeCSS somewhere else, somewhere more willing and capable of fighting the MPAA, but I disagree completely with the way you said it.

--locust

DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by Adam+Selene · 2000-05-19 19:14 · Score: 4

Now, I KNOW this isn't the US - BUT, one of the interesting things I see is that to have the site pulled under the DMCA, they have to swear, under the penality of purgery, that a copyright violation has occured.

Maybe, we can bring a class action lawsuit against RIAA/MPAA for violating the DMCA - I'm sure some US lawyer would LOVE to get hold of some of their money

University bastions of burocrats, not freedom by FreeUser · 2000-05-22 01:33 · Score: 2

Many of us make the erroneous assumption that universities, especially in America, are a bastion (some say "the last bastion") of democracy, freedom of expression, free speach, and so on.

If this is true, then we are all sunk from the beginning. Universities like to market themselves as institutions of free expression, but the truth is that they have never been bastions of freedom at all.

Recall the purges in Germany that presaged the holocaust. Universities did not speak up or object when Jewish professors, students, and administrators were run out, nor did their collegues individually.

Universities did not object, and indeed in many cases supported, police actions against student movements protesting the war in Vietnam. In almost every case where universities claim credit for having supported free speach or controversial points of view, it has been the students or faculty who have spoken out, often despite administrative disapproval. Universities are happy to claim credit in retrospect for laudable actions of their staff or student bodies, but as anyone who has ever been involved in a protest knows, at the time those very so-called heros are generally being threatened with expulsion or worse.

Do not be fooled by marketing. As the actions of numerous American universities, including Oxford, show, they are anything but bastions of freedom. They are large, burocratic institutions run by civil servants who are far more interested in the political infighting of their respective departments, and arranging their careers in a politically expedient manner, than they are in going out on a limb to protect some student or professor's right to free expression, especially if it means going up against some well paid New York Lawfirm financed by one of the largest industries in this country (the entertainment industry, in this case).

In short, if you are serious about fighting the erosion of your freedoms, do not look toward American Universities (which are profit driven entities after all). Look instead toward the ACLU and the EFF.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:University bastions of burocrats, not freedom by FreeUser · 2000-05-22 01:39 · Score: 2

sigh

Yes, I know Oxford is in the UK. I was speaking of American universities because that is where I attended school, and the same myth ("universities are bastions of free speach") is repeated here ad nauseum. I was expressing strong opinions which I know apply to American Universities and, it is reasonable to assume, probably applies to academic institutions in much of the world, including the UK. I probably should have inserted this little disclaimer in the original post...

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

content style sheets by Barbarian · 2000-05-19 22:01 · Score: 2

If the MPAA stated that a DMCA violation was being made against them there, and swore to it, they are probably guilty of perjury, since the DeCSS program on this page was for removing C ontent Style S heets from HTML pages, not for decrypting DVD's with C ontent Scramble S ystem.

--

Re:Information Nazi. by Syberghost · 2000-05-19 19:22 · Score: 2

How do you know the request is baseless under the local law?!

Because the request was to remove software that wasn't even there.

The guy posted an application to remove Cascading Style Sheets from html code. The MPAA asked them to remove an application for decoding DVDs.

--

No, that only applies if you have a DMCA agent. by plagiarist · 2000-05-19 19:29 · Score: 2

In order for an ISP to be protected by the DMCA the way that you mean, they have to have a DMCA agent registered with the US Copyright Office. That agent receives the contact from the complainant, which must have specific info explaining what was infringed and what was infringing.

I just checked The Directory of Online Service Provide Agents and Oxford University isn't listed. Probably didn't bother registering an agent because they're not in the US... or can non-US ISP's even register?

Re:Free Speech at Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-19 19:32 · Score: 3

Quoth the poster:

That may not make most people happy,

It's not about making people happy -- slashdotters or lawyers -- it's about doing what is right

but it would certainly keep them out of legal hot water.

As if that were a good thing?? They were being bullied by a lawyer and they rolled over. Guess what happens now? They get bullied by even more lawyers, for even less grounds.

Earlier, the poster said:

I don't think that the administration should be under any imperative to check up on allegations before they act.

This position is particularly untenable considering how easy it would have been to check ... thirty seconds, tops. Of course, then you'd have to stand up to the lawyers and actually defend a person entitled to your defense.

But even if it were difficult, the university should have checked first. A university is a privileged place. Part of the price is a larger responsibility to speak out, to defend the free flow of ideas, to resist conformity pressures. Sadly most universities fail to see this, but it's true nonetheless.

I would have thought that Oxford was more than a vocational school focused only on the bottom line. I would have thought that a venerable institution like that, having fought hard for its liberties and rights, would stand up to penny-ante scare tactics and drawn a line in the sand. I guess I was wrong.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

heck, who needs them fancy-pants city lawyers... by vsync64 · 2000-05-19 17:00 · Score: 2

...when all you have to do is send a letter on special paper with big words?

Seriously, though, things like the DMCA and UCITA may be irrelevant. In many cases, the person providing the material does not own his or her own server, and the people running such things have shown all too much willingness to remove anything that might be vaguely illegal or controversial. As long as corporations can bully the providers, there's no need for laws.

It's also rather sad that, judging by that message, the administrators are blaming the student for their own confusion and hasty decisions.

--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.

Another: by PhilHibbs · 2000-05-20 05:20 · Score: 2

http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/dvd

A way to manipulate Oxford University by divec · 2000-05-19 17:05 · Score: 5

Cool, somebody in Oxford put a page up saying "Oxford is better than Cambridge", and I'll send a faked letter, supposedly from the University of Cambridge, threatening to sue for defamation. Then let's see if they remove from their website all claims that they are any good at all.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Information Nazi. by dieman · 2000-05-19 17:05 · Score: 2

That admin is an information nazi? Why?

Because he obviously didn't care about taking care of a legal issue without first contacting the parties at stake and finding out what it really is.

Then he goes off and makes fun of it because it 'expends' legal people.

The thing is:

A) it should expend any legal expense other than 3.5 seconds to ignore the request on the grounds that it is baseless.

and

B) I would run from this organization because they obviously do not care about the aviliablity of information and/or the legality of it, and any web pages on these systems might be at stake very easily.

I would move pages away from their systems if they can't figure out to effectively service their customers, the students and faculty.

---
at least umn.edu has decent admins who wouldn't pull shit like this.

--
-- dieman - Scott Dier

American law doesn't apply in the UK by divec · 2000-05-19 17:09 · Score: 4

The MPAA were quite right to ask for this page to be removed from Oxford's servers.

What law would you say it could possibly violate? Remember we don't have things like UCITA and DCMA here [yet].

Remember what that lawyer tried so hard to get Ali G to understand. "American law doesn't apply in the UK. You can't *ever* ``plead the fifth'' here!"

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by divec · 2000-05-19 17:25 · Score: 2

But the British don't have a right to free speech.

Er, do as of 1993, under the European Convention on Human Rights. Although currently it's a bit useless because you have to go all the way to the European Court of Justice to get it enforced. As of October, the convention will be part of British law (not just European law) so it will be easier to get upheld.

Gotta love a monarchy.

It is a somewhat bizzare form of government we have.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:The Uni acted correctly though could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 19:52 · Score: 4

Sure, the University doesn't want to get involved in a costly legal battle, *if* MPAA has a case. But, in this case, there is no case; the student hadn't posted what MPAA claimed he'd posted.

Now Oxford has bigger problems:
1) They have presented themselves as buckling under easily to legal bullies, and so there are likely to be more legal bullies in the wings.

2) They have presented themselves as not respecting freedom of speech. (The material the student posted was the spoof code that was designed to thumb its nose at the MPAA in protest of its activities.) This is not good for PR, not good for admissions, not good for fundraising.

Nobody wants to see Oxford dragged in to court against the MPAA.. I've been in this position myself so I know it ain't pleasant - or cheap... but, my god, if you didn't even do anything....

What a clever thing to do by IdoR · 2000-05-19 17:11 · Score: 2

Yes, it might have caused him trouble. But occasionally trouble is what you have to ask for if you want to protest. Just like Greenpeace protesters who want to be arrested so as to attract media attention.

The important thing here is that MPAA has ABSOLUTELY NO right to ask that page to be removed, because it has NO relevance to the court case.

As it is, it portrayed the MPAA for exactly what it is: a bunch of spooks who send their lawyers to shut the mouth of anyone that mentions terms that frighten them.
(And it's even more frightening that they're chasing people in the UK. Since when did the DMCA apply outside the USA? It's not a case of international copyright control - the Berne convention, AFAIK, does not prohibit reverse-engineering, which is just why the DMCA was required in the first place.)

I think it'd actually make an excellent publicity stunt if used properly.

Re:Free Speech at Universities by divec · 2000-05-19 17:15 · Score: 2

what rights, if any, do students have?

Well, if it's anything like here in Cambridge, he should at least be able to get his network connection fee back, because yanking a blatently legal page is probably breach of contract. But frankly it'd be better to get a page like that hosted by a free ISP who refuses to yank stuff until there's a court order. [uk2.net anyone?]

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Janet vs the World? Hardly. by Unfallen · 2000-05-19 17:18 · Score: 3

Just had a look at the JaNET (the UK Uni thing) policy over at http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html which says:

"9.2. the creation or transmission of material which is designed or likely to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;"

and then

"9.4. the transmission of material such that this infringes the copyright of another person;"

Obviously there's no copyright infringement with a CSS-removal program, so 9.4 doesn't apply. But, to Oxford Uni's credit, rule 9.2 handily steps in and covers any other eventuality possible, including this one...
Winner: JaNET, MPAA, Oxford Uni, et al.

I guess a protest or petition outside a library would be fine (see enough of 'em...), but take the argument to a new, under-understood electronic forum, and you can't do a thing. Freedom of speech appears to be a myth.
Still, with all these rules as to how we can speak, maybe an AI English-Language Finite State Machine is just around the corner....

Re:Free Speech at Universities - Oxford and UK law by tkb · 2000-05-19 20:00 · Score: 5

Extract from Oxford University's Code of Practice regarding freedom of speech (adopted by Council in 1987):

1. General duty to uphold freedom of speech
Members, students, and employees of the University are bound at all times so to conduct themselves as to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, and employees of the University and for visiting speakers.

However, the Code does seem primarily concerned with visiting speakers rather than publication (and predates the popularity of the Web by some years). And if exercising this freedom is outside the scope of academic activity, then the expenses incurred are the responsibility of the person organising the speech, meeting etc. - not (in general) the University.

The 1986 Education Act protects (in the UK) freedom of speech and assembly within universities. However, Geoffrey Robertson QC (a distinguished UK human rights lawyer) comments that this was introduced by the government of the day because several of its own members had been prevented from speaking at universities by demonstrations (or the fear of demonstrations) against their policies.

Re:Non-academic use by Bradley · 2000-05-19 20:05 · Score: 2

I don't know about the UK, but Sydney Uni prohibits commercial use of their network. I seem to recall that the reason for this is that AARNET which provides the net connection for australian unis has been granted various exceptions from the communications act for academic uses. It may (I can't remember) even be illegal for commercial traffic to be carried.

A letter to Mr. Alan Gay by Sara+Chan · 2000-05-19 20:09 · Score: 5

I've sent the following letter to alan@ermine.ox.ac.uk, and CC'd a newspaper.

__________________________________________

Dear Mr. Gay,

This letter concerns OUCS's reaction to the complaints of the Motion Picture Association of America about DeCSS. As I understand it, (i) the MPAA has claimed that DeCSS is used to copy DVDs, (ii) a web site at Oxford University contained a link to a copy of DeCSS, and (iii) OUCS has forced the removal of that site.

There are three points that I hope you will be willing to consider.

First, please look at this simple example of some encrypted information: NbszIbeBMjuumfMbnc. In this case, by shifting each letter one to the left, we can easily decrypt the information: MaryHadALittleLamb. Notice, though, that "NbszIbeBMjuumfMbnc" can be copied (by hand, by computer, by whatever) just as easily as "MaryHadALittleLamb". So encryption does not provide any protection from copying. The information stored on DVDs (i.e. movies) is encrypted, but as with "NbszIbeBMjuumfMbnc", this encryption does not provide protection against copying. DeCSS does essentially one thing: it decrypts the information stored on DVDs. Hence DeCSS does not do anything that that aids in copying DVDs.

Second, you might well ask, "If the above is true, then why is the MPAA so upset?" The answer is that the MPAA does have a use for encryption: to collect extra money, in a way that is not easily visible to the consumer. Because DVDs are encrypted, each DVD player must include some decryption software. Currently, every DVD player uses decryption software that is sourced from the MPAA. The MPAA charges a fee for each copy of this software. Consumers just pay for the DVD player, but (unbeknownst to them) the player manufacturer pays a fee to the MPAA for each player sold. If DeCSS becomes widely used, then the MPAA will no longer collect those fees. The MPAA cannot copyright their own decryption algorithm, because algorithms cannot be copyrighted. So they choose to obfuscate, intimidate, and lie.

Third, this is more than just a "game", as you allege in your message to ox.talk of 2000-05-18. The purpose of DVD encryption is to get extra money from consumers. This may or may not be ethical (I would argue that it is not). But it is surely unethical for the MPAA to allege that their actions are to prevent copying. The purpose of the web site was to protest against such allegations. The actions of OUCS thus amount to disallowing a reasonable, and legal (as you can verify), protest against corporate disingenuity and to accepting the profit-motivated obfuscations, intimidations, and lies of the MPAA. Do you believe that these are reasonable actions?

Sara Chan

__________________________________________

liberalism n. The use of compassionate rhetoric for authoritarian ends.

Oxford did absolutely the Wrong Thing by Chagrin · 2000-05-19 17:23 · Score: 3

I can understand the administrative hassles in ensuring that your network is free of illegal materials, and for this I hold nothing against Oxford University in originally removing the spoof "decss" software. I would have done exactly the same thing (although I believe I would have taken the time to look at the archive before deleting it).

However, once the fact comes to light that this software is indeed NOT illegal, the site should have been immediately put back into place. Oxford has nothing to gain by extending this mistake.

Finally, Oxford backs up its decision with a terrible reason: "We're in the business of education, not controversy". Baloney! Controversy is education. This particular issue could be discussed for hours in curriculums dealing with journalistic, legal, or computer science and reveal a great deal of information that must be considered when engaged in any profession of these and many other areas.

As for Oxford's legal costs, they would never become an issue if they would stop and prove to litigants like the MPAA that they understand and know these types of cases are frivilous and won't stand up in court. To do anything less puts you in the path of being continually pushed around.

What a wonderful precedent, Oxford.

--

I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

I find this fascinating... by fluxrad · 2000-05-19 17:25 · Score: 4

first off. anyone remember what that last A stands for in the 'MPAA'??? I just....can't...seem...to...remember...

Secondly. I sort of disagree with the article on the whole topic of universities being our last bastion of freedom. Look at napster. Universities were some of the first institutions to ban it. Look at the mid 30's. Universities in germany were sponsoring book burnings even before Hitler came to absolute power. To say defending a University just because it's a school or some such argument is sort of, well, dogmatic. The key thing to remember is the phrase "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile." If the MPAA is going to start screwing with anyone and everyone who writes about DeCSS (Ironic that it wasn't even reverse engineered in the states), then anyone and everyone needs to fight the MPAA, and the DMCA, and any other law or organization that aims to take away rights which we feel are worth fighting for. If you let these kinds of acts go unnoticed when they're against "small" people - like joe user on the internet, then the crap that goes on at Oxford, or anywhere else for that matter, is moot.

FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network

--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume

Slashdot Mirror

Oxford Yanks Student Page Over Spoof DeCSS

59 of 222 comments (clear)