Slashdot Mirror
Intellectual Property and a Censored Slash Site?
The following is written by former-Slashsite admin, flikx:
Early last fall, I personally created a Slash site called SOS under student government for my University. I did everything myself with no outside help of any sort, and entirely volunteer. I have never been paid for my efforts in any way, and never expected monetary compensation. I did not actually work for the University, but was a student in Mechanical Engineering. I created said site with the ultimate goal of providing an open discussion forum and weblog for all students of the University.
During the course of operation of the site, I fielded numerous complaints about abuse to the site, and took them in a professional manner, though steadfastly refused to censor any content on the site. Remember that many in Utah are very conservative and dislike free speech on some levels...being fairly conservative myself, I never thougtht I'd run afoul of people. The problem is that I continuously ran afoul of politics as people threatened me repeatedly due to my failure to censor the site. The abuse was minimal, especially by Slashdot standards.
Six weeks ago, the administration censored the entire site due to the threat of legal action due to inapropriate content. The site was down for just over a week, and I was forced to implement strict posting guidelines and adopt a censorship policy for the site.
A new administration recently took over, and first on the list was to get rid of me, and the site. There's much more involved here in politics, plus scr1pt k1dd13 threats spoofed from my email and everything, but the bottom line is that the site was censored for good. The server was physically removed by the police, and the disks wiped after 'evidence' was removed. All known backups were destroyed, and they even obtained a protective order from me and banned me from the University property. I'm also suspended indefinately, and face immediate expulsion from the University. (BTW - I'm almost done with my Mechanical Engineering degree .. so this is not light by any means. If expelled, I'm forced to start over as a freshmen if I ever get into another school.)
So here's some of the problems with which I turn to the Slashdot crowd for a solution:
The administration threatened me, and had the legal team tell me that everything on the site is intellectual property of the University of Utah. Everything. That includes all stories, all comments, user accounts, even the graphic design I did. I have off-site backups of the site, and could easily redeploy the site elsewhere provided the time and hosting. I've already put 2000+ unpaid volunteer hours into the University, and they take away my work. It should be my right to operate an open discussion forum, but it seems that it's not.
What does the Slashdot crowd think about this issue? Should [or does] everything belong to my University? The only involvement the university had was hosting the site and buying the server, that's it. Obviously, the site could be moved elsewhere, and I still have a team together that could operate the site independant to the University. But as I am already being expelled and even facing criminal charges for 'computer crimes', this is far beyond your average Ask Slashdot."
Cliff: If you are interested in obtaining some context for this story, you can dig around the cached pages from SOS on Google.
Secondly, take a look at the U of U Student Code. The Students Bill of Rights, section F. It reads:
F. Freedom of Expression. Students have a right to examine and communicate ideas by any lawful means. Students may not be subject to discipline because of their constitutionally protected exercise of freedom of association, assembly, expression and the press.
It would seem to me you were within those rights. Get a lawyer.
Section D of the Students Bill of Rights talks about due process.
D. Due Process. Students have a right to due process in any disciplinary matter involving the possibility of substantial sanctions. This includes a right to be heard, a right to decision and review by impartial persons or bodies, and a right to adequate notice.
Remember, even if you're expelled, that the people who are reviewing your sanctions are people who, given the nature of your site, were not neccessarily impartial. Get a lawyer.
Look at Section IIA, the Student Standards of Behavior. Notice that what you did is not prohibited by these standards. Get a lawyer.
And in conclusion, STOP ASKING SLASHDOT AND GET A LAWYER!
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Well, let's take a look at some of the google cached headlines, shall we?:
"Should the "U" limit its administrative terms?
(I imagine some deans were more than a little irritated by this)
Jason V. Morgan writes "According to The Utah Daily Chronicle, several deans are irked by the U's 10-year rule, an informal limit on the length an administrator can hold an appointment. Apparently, Machen's own career has followed this philosophy.
My own opinion is somewhat similar to The Chrony's: while promoting administrative turnover has its benefits, it is unwise to blindly follow an unofficial rule such as this. It contributes to the "us vs. them" mentality shared by the faculty and administration when the administration arbitrarily refuses to reappoint a dean that may be doing an effective job.
"Utah could be hurting its economoc potential"
(Mormons are notoriously ill-humored about even innocuous subjects
Oxymoronic writes "On Monday, the Los Angeles Times published this article. Apparently, many former "dot com" programmers, as well as many movie technichians, have entered into the pornography industry or at least spent some time looking into it. Unlike other industries that have tried to make it on the Internet, pornography has turned out to be very profitable. Utah's very conservative stance, embodied in the appointment of a "Porn Czar," could limit the potential for Utahns to profit from this lucrative, stable industry."
"U" School of Medicine Accused of Discrimination
(The University can't be happy about this one either)
The Utah Daily Chronicle recently ran this article reporting that an audit of the School of Computing admissions process is being pushed by Rep. Carl Saunders, R-Ogden. He has cited cases where students have been denied admission by the University of Utah School of Medicine, but have been accepted into other top-notch universities.
"Is the U insensitive to the Native American Heritage?"
(Another criticism that probably hits a little too close to home)
Today's The Chronicle View contends that the University of Utah still has some steps in order to stop degrading the Native American Heritage. While the University of Utah does much to recognize and highlight Native Americans, there are apparantly many who feel that the University of Utah's efforts are not enough. What do University of Utah students think? Log in and click on Read More... to add your thoughts to this issue.
"What do U of U students think of the war on drugs?"
(Another topic likely to deeply offend and confuse the dominant religion of the region)
Jason V. Morgan writes "A recent slashdot.org article highlighted a New York Times article (free registration required) which says that Amtrack shares information about its passengers with the DEA. This seems to be an unnecessary violation of privacy; one that weakens our fourth amendment rights. Do University of Utah students think that the war on drugs is worth these kinds of compromises and its incredible cost?"
Given the subjet matter at hand, and my own personal experience with the authoritarian nature of Mormon society (my mother and sister are Mormons, so I've seen this first hand on many occasions), it is very possible that we do in fact have the entire story and the extreme (over)reaction of the university is in fact all it has been described as. Other universities, including my own alma matar of the University of Illinois, have frequently reacted in very heavy handed fashion which, while remaining technically within the rather wide bounds granted to them by law, were nevertheless indefensible on an ethical level.
As an aside (not related to your post, but to others I have read here), the arguments that the poster should shut up and stop bitching because he has no constitutional rights on private property are particularly disturbing, and the main reason I ultimately rejected the Libertarian stance on social issues. A nation in which one's rights end at the edge of the public sidewalk, in a country as privatized is this, is not a very free nation at all. How much of your life do you spend on private property vs. public property, and how many rights do you assume you have that, according to such an argument, you in fact do not? I type this message right now, sitting on private property. I excersize my freedom of speech on my lunch hour, yet these people would argue that firing my sorry ass would be just fine (if I were to offend my employer), simply because although it is my time, it is my employer's network to which my laptop is connected and across which the bytestream passes.
If this is the kind of world they wish to advocate, then I want nothing of it. And, I suspect, our founding fathers would feel similarly.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Find like-minded Alumni. Organize them. Then have them complain to both the Alumni Association and the University itself. And have them threaten to cut off all future donations.
It's the advice of the late Robert A. Heinlein...:
It's dirty pool, but VERY effective. . . .
I once ran a similar site at RumorsDaily.com (it's since been disbanded due to my graduation). It started as a sort of underground news source, mainly focusing on Student Government and later on expanded to all sorts of student opinion and online discussion at Tufts University.
I was personally threatened with lawsuits from students twice, and was personally visited by the Secret Service once (someone threatened Al Gore's life). The school was very unhappy about the whole concept of open student opinion and once or twice made veiled criticisms. The school's Daily paper made some low level threats at a lawsuit as well.
Basically, what I'm saying is that it's a very treacherous ground you tread upon when you start giving people in real world community the ability to attack each other anonymously in an online community. I eventually set up a list of posting guidelines which is very loosely enforced... my rule eventually became, if the person is not a public figure, don't talk about them. If they are a public figure, you can talk about whatever you like, just don't threaten or impersonate them. (I always felt dirty the few times that I removed posts, but I just didn't want to deal with the hassle of a lawsuit that I assumed I would lose).
I'm not really sure why I chimed in, but I wanted to support anyone else who's tried to run this sort of site. You get a lot of flak and you spend a lot of time to make something that people enjoy using, and then you get beaten upon, criticized and eventually shut down, all because people fail to get along. It's really a shame. My site grew to about 1000 hits a day before I removed it from the public discourse, I know what it's like.
I however, early on made the decision to get my site OFF the University's equipment and onto my own server offsite. This way the school had no grounds for officially shutting down the site, or making off with the server. They had no control over a site operating off school grounds, Acceptable Use Policy or no.
So I guess that's my ultimate suggestion, if you're going to do something like this
Good luck in the future to anyone who tries this... I personally found it very rewarding, but it took a lot of suffering.
--
--
RumorsDaily
First thing: get a lawyer if you can. Most Universities (esp those with a law program) have some kind of legal aid for students. There is a certain amount of irony in using University resources against them. You might even find a law prof that is sympathetic and would enjoy sticking it to the University. Your student society would probably provide a laywer if you were a volunteer for them while doing this stuff.
I don't see any reasonable way that the University can claim to own your content. Even University employees have pretty liberal contracts about ownership of the results of "Outside activities". If you're just a student, there should be even less of a connection.
You should be able to find somebody inside the school that will be on your side. If there's one thing that academics hate, it's being told what to think. You'll find someone sympathetic to champion your cause somewhere.
Start with the administration. Your student society should have a good idea of who would be sympathetic. If there's a Dean of Students or something, try that person.
Talk to your school's Faculty association (or union, whatever). Usually, these groups are quite good at realizing "If it's a student now, it could be us next." and might be willing to say a few words on your behalf.
Student newspapers usually tend to swing to the left and will probably adopt a favourable editorial stance if you sound like a reasonable student who just got smoked by the admin.
Keep up the good fight. University administrators, especially those who like to beat up on "academic freedom" (two words you should say every chance you get) tend to learn quickly how much power they actually have, which isn't much. It's too bad you're the one on the receiving end, though.
Greg
For those of you who are wondering what the administration is all upset about, I give you what I believe to be my first clue about that.
Follow their Network Connection Acceptable Use Policy to their Information Resources Policy to their Student Rights Section and read this:
E. Freedom from Discrimination and Sexual Harassment. Students have a right to be free from illegal discrimination and sexual harassment. University policy prohibits discrimination, harassment or prejudicial treatment of a student because of his/her race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or status as an individual with a disability, disabled veteran, or veteran of the Vietnam era.
If I were a university administrator, taking down this site would be like shooting fish in a barrel. They don't have to be troubled by the fact that the administrator didn't write the offending posts, that's just an administrative detail to them.
The question is whether they're living up to part D of the student rights in expelling him:
D. Due Process. Students have a right to due process in any disciplinary matter involving the possibility of substantial sanctions. This includes a right to be heard, a right to decision and review by impartial persons or bodies, and a right to adequate notice.
But since we haven't been provided any of the details as to the charges he's facing, we can't really speak to that.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
at the very least you'll get some free legal advice, at the best maybe free representation.
zpengo, I totally appreciate and agree with your points regarding the University's right and ability to remove their support (via "lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.")
The point that is being made, however, seems to extend further than what you're arguing. From your original post in this thread: "Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him "
I think that the problem that's got most people a little worried or upset is not the University pulling it's support, via servers, bandwidth, etc. but rather the disciplinary and intellectual property rights issues that are being (possibly) abused in this case. The fact that the university is now claiming all content from the slashcode site that Flikx put together is a troubling move, in many people's eyes. Does the University of Utah have a right to claim all of that content as its own intellectual property? There may well be some sort of clause in their usage agreement to that effect, but if there is not, it seems very questionable as to whether or not UofU may claim it as their property.
I did a quick search of the University's website, hoping to find their network and computing acceptable usage policy statement, but I found something else that seems to speak to this issue even more strongly. At the bottom of many (if not all) pages on the UofU website, there is this link to a "Content Disclaimer". Of particular interest was the second point in this disclaimer:
Clearly, when it suits them, the University is more than willing to draw a clear distinction between what is their doing and what is the doing of another party, whom they are not responsible for, even though the content in question may be under their domain name. That point seems to really call into question whether or not the University may claim the work of Flikx, for which he was not compensated nor (as far as I understand it) was he under any sort of agreement regarding the rights to the site which he created. Clearly, the content disclaimer makes it clear that the University doesn't always claim any/all content accessible under its domain name as its property, so what is it about this case that makes them able to do so?
It is that point, in my opinion, that does make what the University of Utah is doing very scary, and if not censorship (which I am not arguing it is), it seems like it might be theft of intellectual property rights (both Flikx's AND all of the users who ever posted to that slashcode site.)
Some good points here, but I have to correct some mistakes.
SOS is based in Utah, and we have different legal and cultural norms here. The first amendment (ratified by the same idiots who brought us the secon amendment) may prevail in the Federal courts, but that doesn't mean we enforce it to the same extent in the state courts.
Last time I heard there was this little thing called federalism that makes sure that the states cannot violate the Constitution. The state courts may not always follow the spirit of the Constitution, but they're checked by the federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
When the Founding Fathers broke away from England and enacted the bill of rights, they didn't intend for it to apply to this sort of situation. Heck, judging from their own passage of the "Alien and Sedition Act", they didn't even intend to protect actual political speech within their own time.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were massively unconsitutional and were struck down. (and rightly so.) You have damn well better believe that political speech is protected. Doesn't matter if it's "the mayor isn't qualified for the job" or "President Bush is an idiot." Political speech, especially about those working in public institutions like a public university, is clearly covered in the First Amendment. However, you are correct in pointing out that personal threats are not protected speech at all, and I'd bet that's the real issue here.
Since the site was hosted by the University and the university network was used, there's probably no legal recourse. However, seeking legal council is a must, and determining if there was any contract that surrendered your IP rights to the U will be important. If the U can prove that you violated their rules, then they have a case. However, if you had any legal language stating that you could not be held accountable for the statements of posters you might have some legal wiggle room.
Oh yeah, IANAL, but I can fake it...
When will people get this through their heads? There is a significant difference between "free speech" and "supported speech." Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him (through use of their equipment), and he must find another sponsor.
Got Rhinos?
1) Demand a copy of the agreement
2) Was this agreement signed by you and by them ?
3) Were you 18 when you signed it ?
Do they HAVE any policy about student run sites (ownership/copyright/etc. ), then demand to see them.
You DO have some recourses. You SHOULD get a lawyer though as protection. You may be able to prove harassment by the school (maybe not)..
UPS Sucks
Get a lawyer first. No question. Only they can really work out all the details.
More than likely they can kick you out (although they may not have followed their own due process giving you ample opportunity to remedy) and they can certainly choose not to host it.
They might even own whatever you did because it was on their server. Maybe. But I'd guess probably not. And even if they own whatever you did, they might not own all the posts.
If they give you an option to stay in school, I'd take it, personally.
Now, if someone who wasn't a student and didn't use your code were to restart it, well, that wouldn't be a problem. _IF_ they actually expel you, I would probably let someone else start it back up. And I'm not convinced a more liberal school wouldn't accept you, possibly even some with transfer value.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Hoy, you can say that again. Last time I was in The Salt Lake City of Latter Da--I mean, Salt Lake City, my friends and I had to be sponsored members of the club we found just to have a drink and shoot some pool (apparently, local law prohibits the sale of alcohol pretty much everywhere except clubs that maintain a membership list (where everyone must be sponsored by an existing member) and sub-basement N36, Room 101 of the HQ.)
Granted, the club's membership requirements weren't that stiff ("Hey, Steve, wanna sponsor these guys? Sure, Jim!",) but nonetheless...
Speech in Utah takes exactly one approved form, and I don't think I even need to drop the name of the organization that determines what form that is. During this same previous trip, the local press had run a little drivel piece that pointed out, among other things, that even Democrats were made to feel welcome at the local 4th of July parade. (This same article featured a sentence about a particularly precocious youth who had supposedly uttered (with no coaching, heavens no,) "Daddy, what's a Democrat?")
The university is well within its rights (and upholding its duty to instill good moral character within its students) when they treat your site this way.
You'll forgive me for saying this, but anyone who believes that a public university is right to silence dissident student voices in the name of "instilling good moral character within it's students" has a pretty fscked sense of moral character. That includes juvenille insults, as well; if you can't even handle a juvenille insult, well...
This is not about speech. This is not about freedom. This is just a student bitching about the "fascist administration". Nothing to see here; please move along.
Um, that's political speech, if ever I've heard it. Doesn't matter whether or not the kid's a crackpot; it's still protected speech under the Constitution. Now, that the administration saw fit to shut down the site and is seemingly pressing legal charges makes me wonder which side of the argument is playing host to the crackpots, but that's a different matter.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions