Slashdot Mirror
King Will Not Sue Schools Over Napster -- Yet
Jon writes: "In this Daily Cal article Howard King claims, 'We made it pretty clear we're not going to sue colleges, at least not at this point in time. I think at this point my clients want me to continue the educational process.' This article mentions that so far only Penn State University has agreed to ban napster. The UC System (includes Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, etc), Michigan, Princeton can be added to the schools refusing to ban it."
I remember Steve Jackson Games and their equipment wasn't confiscated for pirated software.
It was confiscated because on of the users on Steve's bbs (and I think maybe also an employee but I can't remember), "knew" somebody that frequented a hacker/warez bbs. Also that was when they were developing GURPS and a sci/fi cypherpunk game at the time.
The Secret Service tried to use that as a basis that Steve's BBS and the game were instructions creating computer based crimes (though the technology discussed in the game wasn't even availible then and alot of it still isn't today).
Steve was able to sue the not only the offending agency's but also some of the specific agents involved, which is if I remember right was a first.
Asking universities to stop providing the bandwidth that makes Napster effective is like asking chicken farmers to stop selling chickens because babys could be put in chicken roasters. If anybody should be policing copyrights, it's Napster itself. They're the ones in a questionable legal position, not the universities.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
As for asking universities to enforce the laws of the nation on their students, that's bullshit. That's what the legal system is for. If the RIAA wants pirates off Napster, let them go after the pirates. It makes very little sense for them to go after the university (who has lots of money and lawyers) rather than the big time pirates (who according to the RIAA are students, and most likely poor and without lawyers). Asking universities to circumvent the court system and start passing judgement on their students is insane. Notice that the RIAA isn't actually saying "Here's the IP of someone who's making 800 songs available, thereby violating our exclusive distribution rights, please remove them from your network", they're saying "Well, Napster's on your network, so somebody somewhere's bound to be pirating. Shut it ALL down." If universities argree to this, they've set themselves in a huge, huge hole. Next thing you know, someone could come along and say "you allow refrigerators on campus, somebody somewhere is bound to be keeping alcohol in them when they're underage, so ban them all". Somebody could come along and say "you make Xerox machines available for student use; somebody somewhere's bound to be photocopying part of my textbook and robbing me of royalty money, shut them all down!" The whole idea of the RIAA expecting ANY university to shut down a service based on the POSSIBILITY of abuse is outrageous, and insane. I'm glad to see schools standing up to this shit; and I'm glad to know that mine would be one of the last to ever ban anything tech related.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
While it's great to know that lots of people at these big universitys that cost lots of money to go to are allowing napster to still be used.. unfortunately, most of the smaller schools don't have the money or legal team to take on any battles. My school has already banned napster, and also banned scour sx. I am personally opposed to this, but I have to face the fact that my school (the University of Northern Iowa) is easily bullied by evil lawyers who send cease and desist letters.
Remember, UCLA and the UC Berkley campus don't make up the majority of college students.
You can't see this if you have sigs turned off.
It's THREATSTER! An all purpose Napster automatic legal threat generator.
If i dialed my friends computer direct, would the phone company be liable if i xfered a copyrighted song? No just as it would not be liable if i used it to make a threating phone call.
:)
But your friend would. And I think herein lies the rub. Back in my BBS days, that's exactly what you would do. BBSes would even be connected to networks, like FidoNet. Yet they still could be held legally liable for stuff that went across those networks. Remember the case of Steve Jackson Games: their BBS and all of its equipment were confsicated because of pirated software, and much of it was put online by it's users. (We didn't have cool technologies like MP3 in those days
ISPs are really just logical extensions of BBSes, except that most ISPs (with the notable exception of "online services" like AOL or MSN) don't have their own local content. Although some ISPs have portals that are specific to their users, so the lines are blurring. ISPs provide Internet access, but people dialup or otherwise connect to them, and the content does pass through their systems.
I'm not saying that ISPs shouldn't be given common carrier status: I'm just providing background and playing devil's advocate here.
My journal has hot
As I mentioned yesterday, there's an updated Daily Cal article here.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
Gimme a break dude.
Sure, you can say 'Napster can be used for good'.
We all know damn well that most users use it to pirate music. Sheesh. ANd in this case, that IS the point.
THey aren't banning the tool; they're saying that a tool that is mostly used for criminal activity is showing up, so they're going to KEEP AN EYE on it.
How much more reasonable should they be?
Lastly, if they count total packets going to napster.com, then you should set up a daemon to reload napster's news stuff periodically, keep good records to prove that your were not really getting mp3s, and sue the school when they accuse you of piracy.
How can I say this subtly? I can't. You're a twit. That's called fraud and/or perjury.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Napster sucks! Piracy sucks!
Napster rules! Go, freedom of speech!
Can Napster get its own topic icon?
Aren't we having too many Napster posts?
most numbers I've seen (not pulled out of someone's ass) put the infringing material at 87%, and if you accept that spears/m&m probably make up 20% of that alone, it draws a slightly different picture of its use.
The RIAA and King need to get over it. As the Gunslinger might say, the world has moved on.
--
+&x
wait until Napster actually has an income, before you dismiss their business model (making music sharing VERY easy). There are already large musician groups that get paid for large scale free distrubution (radio), so wait until Napster has record profits before you crucify them for not sharing.
--
+&x
so you're excusing theft until payment can be afforded?
You'll have to define "theft" for me better. I am more than willing to excuse copyright infringement, however. So if that's how you define theft, then you have my answer.
If copyright were defined correctly, it wouldn't be infringement either, IMHO.
not sure what VC money has to do with anything. Yes, they do plan on making a profit, and yes, they should compensate the folks whose material is being traded, BUT, we're not to that point yet.
Robin Hood has nothing to do with my love of Napster. We are in a golden age of music. Never before has so much music been so available to so many people, at such a low cost to every one.
It never has been or should be illegal to give my friend a cd, nor should it be if I wish to do so with a digital file.
--
+&x
Rader
I think a worse thing would be banning/blocking something like Half-Life from the network - it's a revenue model for Valve, and actually could possibly damage the company, given enough blockings, unlike napster's situation.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
You never ever sue when you have a good chance of loosing by suing someone with a better leagal team. How many of the best paid lawyers and judges went to Princeton, UC, Standford etc?
Besides anoying them will cause lots of lost sales when the students start protesting and closing down every record store near the shcools not to mention that many of the "new napsters" have people working on it from thouse schools.
Now going after individual students at those schools will be fair game for them.
Don't most colleges act as their own ISP, and isn't it true that ISPs can't be sued for the content that goes through there servers?
Is it just me or is anyone else getting slightly annoyed at Napster not having its own topic icon? Considering the quantity of Napster-related discussion recently, I think people would appreciate being able to separate Napster stories from stories about new artist or new compression methods.
Of course, a system involving multiple topics would be ideal, giving people more control over what they read. But I appreciate that implementing this would be a major time investment.
From what I understand, most UC schools get their resnet internet access either at discount with help from the state, or for free. I serious do not think this is a valid use of my (and "our" for those of you living in California) tax dollars. Why should I be paying for someone else to napster the network to death? Sheesh.
I would really be interested in your counter opinions or support... That's right... Press that reply button. :)
I am a Penn State Student A few days ago, after PSU received a letter from Napster's lawyers, this email was sent out to all of PSU's students. No where does it say anything about Napster being banned outright. Here's the letter:
Dear Penn State Student,
As you may have heard, computer programs like Napster and computer networks have made copying copyrighted material including music and videos easier than ever. The press has reported this phenomenon widely and there has been considerable discussion of it in the Penn State community. You should know that copying of copyrighted material without the permission of the owner is a violation of state and federal laws as well as University policy. The University regards these violations as a very serious matter.
The University has done initial scans of its networks to determine the use level of programs like Napster. These scans do not examine the content of a particular computer in any way but do determine traffic characteristics. The scans suggest that some students may be making extensive use of Napster and other programs that can facilitate illegal copying of copyrighted material that belongs to another person, group, or company. There is also evidence that computer viruses have been transmitted in the process that owners may not be aware of.
Although it is not the intent to curtail legitimate use of such software, the University has an obligation to ensure that its networks and computers are not used to violate the law or University policy. While some seem to take violation casually, the penalties for copyright infringement are serious. All users should be aware of Penn State's program of continuous review of network traffic to identify copyright violations, viruses, or other unsanctioned activities.
If you are responsible for a computer that is attached to the Penn State network in any way, your use of that network is subject to such review. If the review uncovers symptoms of problems discussed above, you will be contacted for further review of your network use. Assistance will be available to eliminate any problems that exist. This will improve network performance for all network users. If the University receives notice that you have used the University network to infringe copyrighted works, your account will be suspended.
Appropriate use of the Penn State computer network and respect for the copyrighted works of others will help to ensure continued access to the widest possible array of software for all University users.
Sincerely,
Rodney A. Erickson
Executive Vice President and Provost
PS: For further information or questions, contact the Center for Academic Computing (helpdesk@psu.edu), Computer and Network Security (security@psu.edu), or your local campus computing organization. Students in the Residence Halls can contact ResCom (rescom@psu.edu).
Make it idiot-proof and someone will build a better idiot.
They want a legal victory against napster in the court system first. Once they have an opinion that it's actually illegal, they'll have a much more solid case against the schools.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The school should be considered a common carrier and not required to ban access to anything BUT if the school is partially funded by tax dollars, the RIAA could have an attack there. Of course, if they manage to get napster shut down, the question is moot.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh yeah, IANAL, But I Play One On TV.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
... They're concentrating all of their legal into suing the real menace here: the hospitals! With a crime as horrible as music piracy it is obvious that no normal person could perpatrate it. It must be some kind of genetic mutation. (probably caused by some of the 70's rock our parents were listening to when we were convieved) Hospitals should have spotted this way back and disposed of such enemies of the people...
Click here to read too much about my personal life
What I mean by that is, where does the banning stop? Could colleges and universities be pressured into banning CD-R(W)'s because they *could* be used to copy copyrighted materials? Could they also be pressured into shutting down ftp and nntp, because they also are sometimes used to transmit copyrighted materials? Can the colleges/universities even be pressured into banning anything computer related? I'm curious, because I might be moving into a dorm soon and I'd hate to see the school laying the smack down on my computers.
;)
As far as the bandwidth issue goes, I think they might take a bit of offence to my plans to have dorm-wide deathmatches, but those don't use up *that* much bandwidth, now do they?
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between various reasons for blocking Napster. I'm a student at the University of Connecticut, where Napster has been banned, quietly, since last winter. The primary reason cited at the time was that students utilizing Napster were taking up far too much bandwidth. Since then, we haven't heard from the University about it, and many students use the Napigator/Napster combo, Gnutella, or Scour Exchange. I really don't see that anyone has been deterred from using file sharing software due to legal concerns. Our campus resnet has added some weekly and monthly bandwidth restrictions, in addition to the old daily limit. They've set up a way to monitor the use on your IP, so it is quite easy to avoid running afoul of the limits.
KAR
"The future belongs to those who can look at a challenge and see an opportunity."
Yesterday while reading the GeorgiaTech technique yesterday I noted that the school officials raised a number of valid points such as
Apart from the fact that Tech feels it is not under any legal obligation to enact a ban, attempting to ban Napster without limiting Internet access in other ways is nearly impossible from a technological standpoint. "At a university like Georgia Tech, such a solution is impractical. Further, even if we found a temporary method, our students are bright enough to find ways around it," said Harty.
Too true, blocking Napster's default port simply means that other ports will be used.
"We will, of course, take swift action regarding any specific instances of infringement of your clients' copyrighted materials once they are brought to our attention."
Under the provisions detailed in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Tech is considered an Internet Service Provider.
So there will still be disciplinary action against those who have been shown to violate copyright materials. So what is the point of asking for a ban except as a hamfisted attempt to bully schools that have a combined legal might that dwarfs Metallica's?
oh, i wish the dumb bastard would try to sue harvard...the law school would eat him alive.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Last school year, Bucknell University did block students from using Napster after realizing that the file-sharing program represented at least 40% of all network traffic and resulted in a total saturation of our T-3 at the peak of Napster's popularity here on campus. Since the staff and administrators at Bucknell care a great deal about their students' welfare, they worked hard to provide a legal alternative that didn't saturate our network.
Their final solution was entirely free (i.e. Bucknell paid $0.00); it involved setting up an iBeam server and coordinating with content provider Launch.com so that anyone Bucknellians can listen to a seemingly infinite amount of legal music beamed off of a dish on top of the campus' Computer Center.
______________________________
Eric Krout
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I can't believe UCLA is siding with the man on the street. When I lived there, I wasn't allowed to run linux in the dorms (no servers... except winblows file sharing, of course). Not sure what their policy is now (I think you have to be questioned and fill out some forms now)
You can read about one student's battle with UCLA resnet here
I think all of these universities should be congratulated for for one not bowing to the capitalist nature of modern society and at least pretending to take a stand for freedom of access to information. Surely, they don't mind either the press or the ability to mention to incoming freshman that no, we don't block Napster, have a blast. I'll be interested to see whether universities that aren't as well endowed as Harvard or the UC's will also refuse Napster and risk what corporate weight RIAA has.
hardly a reason to go to university.
..
i don't understand how you can have this "ANTI CAPITALIST I'M A RADICAL" viewpoint without understanding the simple fact that NAPSTER IS, YES, A CORPORATION. they are trying to MAKE MONEY FROM PEOPLE TRADING MP3s, which is precisely what the RECORD COMPANIES want to do to, except at least the record companies have some intent of paying (albeit a piddling) amount to the artists, because they live in the real world, where we have laws about intellectual property (ie, you make it, you own it -- until, of course, you sign your soul over to Warner.)
which society is worse off -- the one that has companies that steals from artists to make a profit, or the one that renumerates them???
i'm guessing the later -- anyone who produces their own "intellectual property" should feel the same.
fishfcuerk.
The college I attend (look at my e-mail address to find out who), does not officially ban the use of Napster or similar systems, (although the AUP does forbid using the network to violate local, state, or federal law). Instead, they choose to block Napster bound traffic at the socks sever. Officially, their justification is that widespread use of Napster displaces bandwidth which could otherwise be used for eduactional uses. However, some in our Computer Services department have hinted that the real reason is fear of a lawsuit, either from the industry or individual artists.
By not officially banning Napster, the administration can hold on to the claim that they do not censor or restrict network access, freedom of speech, etc. Yet at the same time, they can also make the claim, if pressured by the RIAA, that they are being a responsible service provider by not allowing access to the supposedly evil Napster.
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
...the IT department. After all, what they see are soooo many students connecting to that same damn IP for hours on end. The IT department at my college would certainly raise a big stink, since the ISP really stinks (it's supposed to be a T1, and it gets a 230ms ping; can you say, "get another ISP"?)
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer