RIAA, MPAA Instigate U.S. Naval Academy Raid

LaikaVirgin writes "After receiving a letter from 'four entertainment-based lobbying associations', the U.S. Naval Academy has seized nearly 100 midshipmen's computers that allegedly had pirated media. It's good to see that the armed forces know who's really in charge."

Comments

This is more serious than you think...

[DavidBrown]

Forget all of the debate here on /. about whether or not copying copyrighted material is theft. For these 100 midshipmen, the real question is whether or not the Naval Academy will consider their acts as "theft" and charge them with violating the Honor Concept.

Naval Academy Midshipmen serve under an Honor Concept, which states:

"A midshipman does not lie, cheat, or steal."

Penalties for violating the Honor Concept include: reprimand, being sent to the fleet for a year (and maybe being allowed to come back), and getting thrown out of the Naval Academy.

Hopefully, the Honor Board won't get involved and these midshipmen will be subjected to only administrative discipline (loss of weekend liberty for a period of time, etc.).

You can count on one thing though - Everyone at the Naval Academy will get lectured on how they can't illegally duplicate copywritten material, and the next midshipmen who get caught won't get off so easily.

IAAUSNAG - I am a United States Naval Academy Graduate

No Veterans in the /. community?

[Old.UNIX.Nut]

For those of you who have NEVER served in the Military I will clue you in.

1) Soldiers fall under the UCMJ not the Constitution when it comes to legal rights.

2) These Naval Academy students face being bounced out of there for violating the "code of conduct".

3) Ragging on /. will NOT change the fact that the RIAA has the "current" law on their side.

If you don't like the law, then become politically active and lobby for change instead of wining that you think it is wrong.

"All battles are fought by scared men who'd rather be somewhere else." John Wayne

Re:No Veterans in the /. community?

[joshki]

nope. sorry.
cite all the cases you want, it doesn't change the fact that the UCMJ is not really subject to the constitution. Certain articles of the bill of rights are in the UCMJ, such as the right against self-incrimination at a court-martial.
The problem is that you fail to understand the distinction between a court-martial and an article 15 hearing, which is what these young dumb-asses are going face. Article 15 hearings are not federal court cases, and as such are not subject to the constitution. The only thing that is limited is the punishment that can be handed down -- i.e. your CO can't sentence you to keel-hauling or flogging with a cat-o-nine-tails anymore. He can, however, summarily dismiss you from the military -- which is just as bad as far as these people are concerned. There are no rules -- if you try to request legal representation you will be pushed to rescind that request, as it will only make your punishment worse.

I know -- I've been to an article 15 hearing (coloquially known as Captain's Mast in the Navy). You are guilty from the moment charges are filed -- nothing you say or do will change the outcome. Everything from that point on is based on trying to minimize the punishment you get for whatever you were accused of, guilty or not.

Re:No Veterans in the /. community?

[Froomkin]

I'm afraid that you are wrong as a matter of law: If you are denied due process rights at an Army art. 15 hearing -- e.g. ordered to incriminate yourself -- you have a federal case, and you'll win. What you don't understand is that the "process that is due" is much reduced in the military; which is probably as it should be. Nevertheless, it remains that case that the constitution applies at all times; it just happens that in the circumstances you mention the Constitution doesn't do much for you in a routine case; indeed you may not even have a right to go to court at all to correct routine error. In part this is because the courts have held that art. 15 punishements are "administrative" and not "criminal" in nature. Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. at 31; Dumas v. U. S. 620 F.2d 247 (Ct.Cl. 1980).

What the Constitution does is protect you against non-routine mistreatment: For example, suppose your CO orders you to convert to {fill in religion}, or penalizes you extra for a failure to pray. That's a First Amendment violation, and would be illegal even if military regulations permitted it (I'm sure they don't). Have a look at Weiss v. U.S.. The theory (right or wrong) is that if you wanted the additional constituitional protections that attach even to criminal prosecutions in military trials, you should have exercised your right to reject the art. 15 and demand a full court martial [a right that AFAIK exists for all military personnel except those serving on board ships at sea]. Yes, I understand that in practice the punishments get worse if you are seen to be wasting more people's time.

As for the defendant's perception that all he has left to bargain for is the level of punishment, this isn't actually so different from the civilian system: prosecutors have so many more things they might do than they have time for, they tend to charge the ones they think are most guilty or serious. Unless you have something exculpatory the police missed, you're reduced to plea bargaining: which is just another form of "trying to minimize the punishment you get for whatever you were accused of, guilty or not."

Note, however, that if you are caught red-handed it's ok to punish you more for failing to confess. That's done in the civilian courts (both by higher charges, since you didn't plea bargain, and by higher sentencing for 'failure to take responsibility'). I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the law, and I can't see why it couldn't be done in the military.

Now you are going to tell me that any idiot who thinks he can win such a federal case and have a military career afterwards has no sense. That's probably true, but that goes to the tendency of all organizations to retaliate against whistle-blowers, not what the rules say.

Here's a (farily) simple rule: The US Constitution applies to everything the US government does, not just court cases. It applies to all three branches of government including the executive (which includes the military). But "due process" is not a one size fits all standard. Rather, it's the start of an inquiry, 'What process is due under these circumstances?'

PS. I'm not a veteran. I'm a law professor.